Công cụ MONA base get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it reveals the returned payload ('trạng thái và URL') and explains what a Base is (a beta Supabase replacement on the shared MONA Cloud account/wallet). It says nothing about permissions or failure behavior, so it is value-adding but not rich.

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 alias identification and the core verb are front-loaded, which is good. But the bilingual duplication states each fact twice ('Alias tương thích... / Compatibility alias.', 'Base beta = ... / Beta Supabase replacement ...'), consuming tokens without adding information.

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 getter with one identifier parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the alias relationship, and domain context adequately. Only the meaning of base_id and any not-found/error behavior are left unstated.

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 0% and the single required base_id is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one self-evident identifier parameter, the omission is low-harm and the description is not actively misleading. It adds nothing beyond the name, so it stays at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a Base' / 'Đọc trạng thái và URL của một Base beta') and identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_base_get, which lets an agent place it in the large cloud_*/vibecloud_* family. It does not explicitly differentiate when to prefer this alias over cloud_base_get, but the alias relationship is stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling out that it is an alias of cloud_base_get hints you use this when the vibecloud_* naming is expected. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement versus the canonical tool or cloud_base_list/cloud_base_delete.

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