coolify_list_notifications

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is already covered. The description adds a key behavioral detail: credential values are never exposed, which helps the agent set expectations about sensitive information in the response.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence tells exactly what it does; the second adds an important caveat. No wasted 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations. The description explains the purpose and a critical security aspect. Without an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete 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 input schema fully describes the only parameter ('channel') with an enum and description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not need to repeat this; per baseline, a 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'List notification channel settings.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'coolify_list_servers' or 'coolify_list_projects.'

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 gives clear context: it lists notification settings, so you would use it whenever you need to inspect current notification channels. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no exclusion is necessary given the tool's simple, read-only nature.

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