get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the tool takes no parameters, so there is little to disclose. However, the description does not clarify what 'version information' includes or whether authentication is required, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it communicates the tool's purpose completely without redundancy.

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, parameterless read tool, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies what the tool retrieves and is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it. A minor gap is that the return format or content of 'version information' is unspecified, but this is not critical given the low complexity.

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 accepts zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters and does not add parameter-specific value, but none is required.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('Coolify version information'). It is immediately distinct from all sibling tools, which target applications, databases, servers, projects, and services, so an agent can tell this is the version utility without opening any schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is given, but the tool is self-evident as the only version-related sibling. Usage is implied by its name and description, so an agent can infer when to call it, though there is no explicit guidance about cases where it should not be used.

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