Công cụ MONA app host list

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 covered. The description adds deployment-timing context (first app host ~2-3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10-20 seconds), which is extra information but is about deploy latency rather than about the list operation itself, so it is only partially relevant.

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?

Every sentence is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, and the content order is scrambled — alias note, deployment timing, sandbox advice, then finally the actual 'list app hosts' purpose. The signal-to-noise ratio is poor and the key purpose is not front-loaded.

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, single-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, its alias relationship, and a fallback path when no hosts exist. It stops short of documenting what the returned host entries contain or how they relate to apps, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'sandbox' parameter, so the schema already explains it as 'Sandbox, no charge'. The description references sandbox usage only indirectly (via cloud_app_create) and adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Đọc app host' / 'List app hosts') and clarifies its identity as the compatibility alias of cloud_app_host_list, which helps separate it from the other app siblings. However, the purpose statement is buried at the end of a jumbled bilingual block and competes with deployment-timing and sandboxing notes.

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?

It offers one conditional step — if no host exists yet, run sandbox cloud_app_create first to get an estimate — which is genuine routing guidance. But it never explains when to use this tool versus cloud_app_list or vibecloud_app_list, and the alias framing implies it is interchangeable with cloud_app_host_list without saying so explicitly.

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