Công cụ MONA base list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context that Base beta is a shared-account Supabase replacement, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or return format.

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 front-loaded with the main action ('List Bases') but is repeated in Vietnamese and English, effectively duplicating the same content. While bilingual support may be intentional, the duplication reduces conciseness for an agent that only needs the English instruction.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the target resource, the current account scope, and the nature of Base beta. It could still mention return shape or pagination behavior, but annotations cover safety and the tool is straightforward.

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 are no input parameters, so the schema cannot provide parameter semantics. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List Bases' for the current account. It also explains what a Base beta is (a Supabase replacement on the shared MONA Cloud account/wallet). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like cloud_base_get or vibecloud_base_list, leaving some ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_base_get (retrieve one Base) or cloud_base_create (create a Base). It merely states that it lists Bases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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