coolify_list_environment_variables

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds valuable transparency by explicitly stating that values are never returned, which is a behavioral guarantee beyond annotations. This is especially useful for agents handling sensitive data, but it doesn't detail the metadata format further.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema/annotation info.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, that values are excluded, and the resource scope. The optional environment_name parameter is only labeled 'informational' in the schema, and the description does not clarify whether it filters results, which is a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficient for most use cases.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (resource_uuid, resource_type, environment_name). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate for this high coverage.

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 action (List) and the resource (environment variables for a resource), with a specific scope statement. The addition 'Returns keys and metadata only — VALUES ARE NEVER RETURNED' provides essential distinction from sibling tools like set_environment_variables, clarifying its 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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: whenever you need to see environment variable keys/metadata for a resource. It also implies that values are not available here, signaling that this is not the tool for retrieving secret values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of perfect guidance.

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