dokploy_redirects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavior that 'A redeploy of the application is required for changes to take effect', which is valuable. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or authorization requirements, leaving gaps for a no-annotation context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses a list-like structure for actions, which is efficient. However, it is a single run-on sentence that could be better formatted for readability, but it earns a 4 for being concise and informative.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well: it lists all actions, required parameters, and the critical redeploy requirement. It does not explain return values, but for a simple CRUD tool this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying which parameters are required for each action (create: regex+replacement+permanent+applicationId, update: redirectId+regex+replacement+permanent, etc.). This is not present in the schema for action, redirectId, and applicationId. Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by mapping actions to parameters.

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's purpose: 'Manage URL redirect rules on an application (Traefik regex/replacement)'. It identifies the resource (redirect rules), the context (application/Traefik), and the CRUD actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dokploy_application or dokploy_domain.

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 provides context (URL redirects on an application) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does list all sub-actions and their required parameters, which implies usage, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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