get_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Query' and discloses the default summary/list behavior and 'include:true' modifier. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention pagination, errors, or authentication requirements—adequate but with clear gaps.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and actions. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (4 parameters, 5 actions, no output schema). The description lists the action names but does not explain what each action returns or any other behavioral details. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying each action, but it only elaborates on 'list'. This leaves 'get', 'validate', 'resources', and 'domains' underspecified, though their names are reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description's note 'list (summary fields by default; include:true for full)' adds no new information beyond the schema's own descriptions for 'action' and 'include'. It meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic 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 tool queries Coolify servers and enumerates specific actions (list, get, validate, resources, domains), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_resource' and 'list_resources' which target resources generally. The verb 'Query' plus the resource and action list make the purpose 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?

'Query Coolify servers' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the action list (e.g., list, get, validate) indicates common operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls one step short of full guidance.

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