coolify_project_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing what data is aggregated, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or what 'health summary' specifically contains, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and included data categories; the second explains its efficiency advantage. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the primary output categories (project info, environments, resources, deployments, health summary), which gives the agent a clear understanding of the shape. However, it does not specify the exact structure or nesting of the response, so it stops just short of fully complete.

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 only parameter, project_uuid, is fully described in the schema as 'Project UUID' with a pattern, covering 100% of schema documentation. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage detail for the parameter, so it scores at the baseline for high schema 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 states 'High-level project overview' and enumerates exactly what is included: project info, environments, resources with status, recent deployments, and health summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_get_project or coolify_list_resources by positioning it as an aggregate summary rather than a singular lookup.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: use this for a composite overview. The phrase 'Optimized to prevent multiple separate calls' implies when to use it instead of querying several endpoint-specific tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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