Công cụ MONA app logs

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real operational context the annotations do not: a 500-line output cap and a warning that logs may contain secrets and must not be published verbatim. That is useful disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 bilingual mirrored prose plus an off-topic deployment-timing paragraph that does not belong in a log-reading tool. The actual purpose is neither front-loaded nor given in the opening sentence.

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 should say more about what is returned, but it at least discloses the 500-line cap and the secret-handling caveat. Parameter and usage gaps remain, leaving it only minimally adequate for a three-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'sandbox' is documented in the schema), so app_id and deployment are unexplained everywhere. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, not even the optional deployment selector that determines which log set is read.

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 core purpose ('Read deployment logs' / 'Đọc ... log') is a clear verb+resource, but it is buried at the very end behind two sentences about deployment timing that appear copied from a deploy tool. An agent can eventually tell what this does, but the front-loaded text describes a different operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative to cloud_app_get / cloud_app_deploy. The '~2-3 minutes until first host is live' note only implicitly hints that logs become meaningful after a deploy, and no prerequisites are stated.

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