Công cụ MONA app detect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: it runs entirely offline and does not execute project code, plus it enumerates the detected attributes, giving the agent confidence about side-effect safety.

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?

Front-loads the alias relationship, then states detection scope and safety constraints in dense sentences with little filler. The bilingual duplication is deliberate for its audience, though it makes the description longer than a single-language equivalent.

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 read-only local detection tool, the description covers what is detected and confirms offline/non-executing behavior. It lacks explicit input-path semantics, but its enumeration of detection targets largely stands in for the missing output schema.

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% for local_dir, and the description never names the parameter or specifies whether it is a directory path, absolute vs relative, or what a valid layout looks like. The phrase "local app" only faintly implies the input, so the description does almost nothing to compensate for the schema 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 ("Detect a local app"), enumerates exactly what is detected (Node/Next/Vite/Python/PHP/static, port, start, Dockerfile, build_type, .env.example variables), and identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_app_detect, which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings.

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?

Names the original tool it aliases (cloud_app_detect) and states the offline/non-executing context, but does not explicitly say when to choose this alias over cloud_app_detect or any other detection path, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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