Công cụ MONA plan list

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it computes the cheapest plan meeting the requested CPU/RAM/disk, and notes that admin-only plans are not auto-selected. That recommendation logic is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core function stated first and the pre-approval guidance last. The Vietnamese/English duplication doubles the length, but each half is tight and the English line is a faithful restatement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden; it names the returns (plans, monthly/yearly prices, recommendation) which is adequate. The only real gap is the vague "admin_only không tự chọn" clause, which an agent may not fully parse.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does mention CPU/RAM/disk as the sizing inputs that drive the recommendation, which ties the three params to their purpose. It adds no units, formats, or guidance on partial vs full specification (all three are optional).

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 English half states a concrete verb and resources: list plans and prices, plus a sizing recommendation. It is clearly more than a tautology of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as vibecloud_plan_list or cloud_packages, so an agent cannot tell which to prefer.

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?

"Đọc trước khi duyệt chi phí" (read before approving costs) implies a usage moment, which is more than nothing. But no alternative is named and no exclusion is given, so the agent must infer whether to call this or cloud_prices/cloud_packages.

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