Công cụ MONA base get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call surfaces both state and URL and that the resource lives on the shared MONA Cloud account and wallet (consistent with openWorldHint=true), but says nothing about authentication scopes, error behavior, or what the URL represents.

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 core statement is front-loaded, but the 'Base beta = Supabase replacement' idea is stated twice (once in Vietnamese, once in English) on top of the already-bilingual first sentence, so a meaningful fraction of the text is duplicated rather than additive.

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 partially carries the return-value burden by naming state and URL, which is the minimum useful information. It still leaves the parameter undocumented and the surrounding operational context (auth, rate limits, failures) unstated, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the single required parameter base_id has no description in the schema. The description never mentions base_id, its accepted format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Đọc/Inspect a Base beta') and specifies what is returned (state and URL). It is distinguishable from cloud_base_create/delete and cloud_base_credentials, though it never contrasts itself with the near-identical cloud_base_list or vibecloud_base_get.

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 guidance and no routing to alternatives such as cloud_base_list (for enumeration) or cloud_base_credentials (for connection secrets). The only context given is a definition of what a Base beta is, which helps orientation but does not tell the agent when this call is the right one.

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