Gói cấu hình MONA Cloud

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned content (package_slug, CPU/RAM/disk configuration), which is mildly useful given there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about scope, pagination or provider context.

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?

A single short sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is also what leaves the sibling overlap and usage context unaddressed.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers what comes back (slug plus CPU/RAM/disk specs). It omits any relation to cloud_prices/plan lists and gives no sense of result shape or volume, so it is adequate but with visible 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics need explaining and the description does not confuse anything.

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 ("Liệt kê") and resource (package_slug plus CPU/RAM/disk configuration), so the agent knows it retrieves package definitions rather than prices or plans. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as vibecloud_packages, cloud_prices or cloud_plan_list, leaving overlap unresolved.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like cloud_prices, vibecloud_packages and cloud_plan_list in the same family, the description gives the agent no rule for choosing this tool over them.

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