coolify_list_github_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes team and system-wide apps, which is useful scope context, but it does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits. This mirrors the get_calls example, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and provides the key output detail (team and system-wide apps) efficiently, earning every word.

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 parameter-less list tool with strong annotations, this description is complete. It states the resource and output scope, and since no output schema exists, the mention of 'team and system-wide apps' gives sufficient return-value context. The sibling list makes the tool's niche clear.

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 schema provides complete coverage. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric; the description does not need to explain inputs, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'GitHub Apps' and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it returns team and system-wide apps. The scope is explicit and distinguishes it from other list tools like coolify_list_repositories.

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 retrieving connected GitHub Apps but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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