Công cụ MONA base credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond them: the output is secret, must not be logged, and should go straight into a secret store or uncommitted .env. That is exactly the kind of operator-critical context annotations can't express.

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 the same content repeated in three blocks (Vietnamese, then two near-identical English renderings). The second and third sentences are redundant ('Base beta = thay Supabase...' and 'Beta Supabase replacement...'), so words are spent without adding information.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, it usefully names the returned fields (anon_key, service_key, db_url) and the handling caveats. However it leaves the single parameter unexplained and gives no auth/prerequisite context, so it's adequate but not complete.

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 (base_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It never explains what base_id identifies or how to obtain it; it only alludes vaguely to 'Base beta'. The schema therefore documents the param no better than the description does.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: read anon_key, service_key and db_url for a base, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cloud_base_get or cloud_base_list. The 'Base beta = thay Supabase' framing adds useful scope context. It's clear but slightly muddied by being restated three times.

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 implies usage ('Reveal credentials once and keep them secret') and gives post-call handling guidance, but never states when to call this versus cloud_base_get or after which setup step. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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