coolify_list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 'Sensitive network info and SSH keys are redacted', which informs the agent that output fields may be masked. This is useful beyond the 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 two crisp sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description fully covers what it does and an important behavioral nuance (redaction). It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 and an empty schema (100% coverage), so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which 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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('all servers connected to your Coolify instance'), distinguishing it from siblings like coolify_get_server (single server) and coolify_list_server_resources (resources on servers). The scope 'all servers' is 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 phrase 'List all servers' clearly indicates when to use this tool (when you need the full server list). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the simple nature of the tool and sibling names make this less critical. Still, a note about using get_server for individual details would be helpful.

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