dokploy_overview

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and it delivers the key safety trait up front: 'Read-only', implying no side effects. It also discloses the unfiltered global scope ('span every project', 'fleet-wide') and what each mode surfaces, setting expectations about breadth. However, the literal claim 'No parameters' is behaviorally misleading because the schema requires an `action` argument, which could cause an agent to attempt an invalid call.

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?

Roughly 75 words cover purpose, scope, all three mode semantics, when-to-use, and follow-up routing, front-loaded with 'Read-only fleet-wide rollups'. Every sentence earns its place except the short 'No parameters' phrase, which is both incorrect and confusing. The structure is otherwise tight and efficient.

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 three-mode read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what each mode returns, the global scope, and the navigation flow into detail tools. It doesn't specify the output shape beyond field hints (status, schedule, target), which is acceptable for an orientation tool. An agent has everything needed to choose a mode and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of each enum value — 'services', 'backups', 'domains' — and what each returns. The action-to-meaning mapping is clear enough for an agent to select the right value. The 'No parameters' sentence creates tension with the required `action` parameter, but the surrounding content resolves that ambiguity in practice.

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 purpose: read-only fleet-wide rollups spanning every project, used for orientation before drilling into a specific resource. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming the detail tools (dokploy_application, dokploy_domain, dokploy_backup) as follow-ups. Each action mode is tied to concrete output ('services: every application, compose service and database with its status'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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 gives an explicit decision rule: use these first when asked 'what is running / what is exposed / what is backed up', then switch to the named sibling tools for detail and for changes. This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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