Công cụ MONA app detect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by stating it runs 'hoàn toàn offline' and 'không thực thi code dự án' (does not execute project code), which is a meaningful execution guarantee an agent could not infer from the hints alone.

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 content is compact and front-loads the detection targets, but it is delivered twice, once in Vietnamese and once in English, which doubles length for the same information. Bilingual redundancy is defensible for localization but costs conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the detected fields (port, start, Dockerfile, build_type, env var names), so an agent knows what comes back. The only real gap is the unexplained local_dir input, making it nearly complete for a one-parameter detection tool.

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?

There is one required parameter (local_dir) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it – no indication of absolute vs relative path, expected directory shape, or error behavior. The enumerated detection outputs do not compensate for the undocumented input.

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?

States a specific verb (detect/nhận diện) and resource (a local app) and enumerates exactly what is detected: Node/Next/Vite/Python/PHP/static, port, start command, Dockerfile, build_type and .env.example variable names. This is very concrete. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-duplicate sibling vibecloud_app_detect, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says what is detected but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_app_create or vibecloud_app_detect, nor any preconditions (e.g., run before app creation). No when-to-use or when-not guidance is present.

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