coolify_get_current_team

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, name, permission scope), giving the agent a concrete idea of what to expect. No additional side effects or caveats are necessary for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and lists the key return fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear read-only role), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does and what it returns. No additional edge cases or error handling are necessary.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description has no burden to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides no conflicting or redundant details. It simply states what is returned, which is sufficient.

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 the tool retrieves the current team context and specifies the exact fields returned (id, name, permission scope). It uses a specific verb (Get) and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_team_members.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for the current team, implying use when you need the active team's details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_team_members or list_projects, so it lacks explicit exclusions while still being clear enough for typical usage.

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