Công cụ MONA app get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds provisioning timing context (first host ~2–3 min, subsequent deploys 10–20 s), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, though it is stated as a general app fact rather than a property of this read.

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 text is bilingual duplication separated by slashes, so every idea is stated twice ('Alias tương thích... / Compatibility alias', 'Đọc status... / Inspect app'). The core action is buried at the end rather than front-loaded, and the timing sentence sits awkwardly in the middle.

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 read-only inspect tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate: it names the fields returned (status, URL, deploys, host) and flags the alias relationship. It does not explain the required app_id or how a 'not found / not yet live' state appears, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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 50%: the sandbox parameter is documented in the schema ('Sandbox, no charge'), but app_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning or format guidance, so there is no compensation for the 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?

Identifies the tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_get and states its job: 'Inspect app' / reads status, URL, deploy count and app host. The verb+resource is clear enough to route an agent. It loses a point only because the title ('Công cụ MONA app get') and the fragmented bilingual phrasing dilute the statement.

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 'compatibility alias' note implies the tool is interchangeable with cloud_app_get, which is a useful routing hint, and the provisioning timing ('app host đầu tiên ~2–3 phút, deploy sau đó 10–20 giây') tells the agent when a status read is meaningful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or condition distinguishing it from the cloud_app_get sibling.

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