get_resource

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

The description indicates a read-only 'Get' operation, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens when the UUID is invalid, whether authentication/instance selection is needed, or confirm that no modifications occur. The read-only implication is clear, but no additional behavioral context is disclosed.

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 a single, direct sentence that conveys purpose and scope without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource types generically, but does not detail the response shape. Since 'full details' implies a comprehensive return, and format is not explained, there is a minor gap. However, the overall simplicity keeps completeness high.

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 all parameters (100% coverage), including the enum for type and descriptions for uuid and instance. The description adds little beyond restating 'by type and UUID'—it does not explain the instance parameter or the meaning of each resource type. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the description provides no extra value.

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 operation ('Get full details') and the target ('a specific Coolify resource'), with precise scoping ('by type and UUID'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_resources (lists all resources) and get_logs/get_deployments (which target other aspects). The verb and resource are specific and 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_resources should be used to discover UUIDs, or that get_logs/get_deployments serve different purposes. The description implies its own use but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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