Công cụ MONA app host list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is already established. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: per-app readiness timing (first host 2-3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10-20 seconds) and the conditional fallback to sandbox app creation when no host exists, which an agent would not otherwise know.

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 dense but the structure is muddled: three fragmented clauses, a bilingual split that doubles the text, and the timing facts are sandwiched before the actual action ('List app hosts') appears at the end. Most sentences carry useful information, but the front-loading is weak and the duplication costs clarity.

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 one optional parameter, a full schema description, and no output schema, the description is largely complete for this complexity. It covers readiness timing and the no-host fallback path; only the return shape and the sandbox-vs-live distinction would add further value, which is acceptable given the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100% for the lone 'sandbox' parameter, which the schema already defines as 'Sandbox, no charge'. The description does not expand on the sandbox flag's behavior or distinguish it from real provisioning beyond what the schema conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'List app hosts' / 'Đọc app host', giving the agent a concrete operation to invoke. However, it does not distinguish itself from the several sibling list/read tools in the same family (cloud_app_list, cloud_app_get, vibecloud_app_host_list), so it edges forward but 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 implies usage through the timing note ('first host ~2-3 min, later deploys 10-20s') and the fallback hint ('if no host exists, sandbox cloud_app_create first to estimate'), which is actionable context. But it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus cloud_app_list or cloud_app_get, leaving selection partly to inference.

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