coolify_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context about the response contents ('environments and resource counts'), which goes beyond what the schema or annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it returns (environments and resource counts), which is sufficient for basic usage. A slightly richer description could mention not-found behavior or return format, but the tool's simplicity keeps this complete enough.

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 input schema has a single parameter with a description ('Project UUID') and 100% schema description coverage. The tool description echoes 'by UUID' but does not add any new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'project' and scope 'by UUID with its environments and resource counts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists all projects) and project_overview, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need a single project by UUID with its environment and resource count details). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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