Công cụ MONA base list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful domain context (shared MONA Cloud account/wallet, beta Supabase replacement) but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or auth beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the alias relationship, but every sentence is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling the text without adding information. Each language version is brief, but the interleaved bilingual structure makes the description longer than it needs to be for a single reader.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is listed, whose account, and what the resource conceptually is. Return format is not described, but for a simple list operation with read-only annotations this is a minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; the description correctly implies the result is scoped to the current account implicitly.

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 ('Liệt kê Base beta của tài khoản hiện tại / List Bases') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling cloud_base_list by declaring it is the compatibility alias of it. It even clarifies the domain concept ('Base beta = Supabase replacement'), so an agent can tell it apart from cloud_base_get/cloud_base_create without opening a schema.

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 description names cloud_base_list as the canonical tool this aliases, which implies interchangeable usage, but never states when to prefer this alias over the canonical name, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied rather than instructed.

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