list_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the broad scope and optional filter but omits behavioral details such as the read-only nature, the effect of the instance parameter, pagination, or permission requirements. Some context is added, but it is not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with a parenthetical enumeration. Every word contributes, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 list tool, the description covers the main purpose and type filter, but fails to mention the instance parameter, which is important for multi-instance setups. Although the schema fills the gap, the description's ambiguity about instance scoping leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description only redundantly mentions the type filter and does not describe the instance parameter at all, so it adds little over the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Coolify resources'), the scope ('across all projects'), and enumerates the resource types. It also notes the optional type filter, which distinguishes it from more specific tools like get_resource or list_instances.

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 implies use for listing resources but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implied by the task description.

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