Dùng ngay MONA Agent template

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a vague 'sandbox first if no host' note and 'repo_url (already live)' remark that belong to a different tool, giving no real behavioral context for a template deployment.

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 text is short and free of padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is not front-loaded on the actual purpose and the cryptic sequencing (arrows, abbreviations) hinders comprehension rather than aiding it.

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 non-idempotent deployment tool with a required undocumented parameter, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what a template is, what gets created, and what happens on failure. It does none of this and instead describes an unrelated app-deploy flow.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required 'template' parameter is never described; instead the description references non-existent parameters (local_dir, repo_url). The title 'MONA Agent template' weakly implies template is a template identifier, but behavior around it is unaddressed.

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 it 'calls the same runtime as cloud_agent_deploy' and then describes deploying an app directory or git repo (cloud_app_detect → cloud_app_create(local_dir), repo_url). That flow does not match this tool's actual single 'template' parameter, so the stated purpose looks pasted from a different deploy tool and never clearly says what agent_deploy does with a template.

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?

It hints at a relationship with the sibling cloud_agent_deploy ('same runtime') and says to use sandbox first if there is no host, but it never says when to pick agent_deploy over agent_templates_get/list or cloud_agent_deploy, nor what prerequisites (auth, existing host) are required.

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