list_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists deployments but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds useful context about what deployments represent. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words or redundancy, making it highly 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?

Given the complexity of listing deployments (which could involve historical data, filtering, or pagination), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations to cover behavioral aspects, no output schema to describe return values, and the description lacks details on scope, format, or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided, which is appropriate for this case.

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: 'List all deployments across your Coolify instance.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('deployments'), and scope ('across your Coolify instance'), with an additional clarifying sentence explaining what deployments represent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment' or other list tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_deployment' (for a single deployment) or other list tools (e.g., 'list_applications'), nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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