coolify_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the response content (health status, auth status, latency) and guaranteeing 'No secrets in response,' which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second lists expected outputs, and the third adds a security guarantee. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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 health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and reassures about sensitive data. There are no gaps in context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the operation and return values, which is all that is needed since there is nothing to document about parameters. No param info is missing.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Check Coolify API and MCP server connectivity.' It also lists what it returns (health status, auth status, latency), making it distinct from sibling tools that create or manage resources. This is a dedicated health check tool with an unmistakable purpose.

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 verifying connectivity before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or include any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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