List projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields, but does not disclose pagination defaults or limits despite the presence of limit and offset parameters. The phrase 'List all' may be misleading if pagination caps results. This is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose and return fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary wording, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description must explain return values, which it does (UUID, name, description, environments). However, it omits critical context about pagination behavior (limit/offset) and whether 'all' is subject to a maximum. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or effect of the limit and offset parameters. The phrase 'List all' is insufficient and potentially contradicts the existence of pagination parameters. No parameter-level information is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all Coolify projects.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like listApplications and listDatabases by naming projects. Additionally, it lists the return fields (UUID, name, description, environments), which adds clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to list projects. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like listResources or listEnvironments, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. This is adequate but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.