List servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output fields but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, or side effects. The verb 'List' implies safety, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond that.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the action and scope, the second lists return fields. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the action and return fields, but given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any parameter explanation, it is incomplete. It does not explain pagination or the summary flag, which would be necessary for a fully self-contained description.

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 mention limit, offset, or summary parameters. It provides no explanation of how these affect the returned results, relying entirely on the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: "List all Coolify servers." It also enumerates the returned fields (UUID, name, IP, user, port, proxy type), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listApplications or getServer.

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?

The description implies usage for listing all servers, but does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of getServer for individual server details or other list tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives, so it meets only the implied usage level.

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