Công cụ MONA subscription list

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 that it surfaces active packages, renewal period and auto-renew status, which is mild content-level context, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination behaviour beyond what the annotations give.

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?

It is short, but every idea is stated twice in Vietnamese and English, and the alias meta-note leads instead of the purpose. The duplication costs value 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description has to carry the return-value burden, and it does name the key fields (packages in use, renewal cycle, auto-renew). It is thin on scope (all subscriptions? ordering?) but sufficient for a parameterless list 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents an input; there simply is nothing to document.

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 ('List subscriptions', 'Đọc các gói đang dùng') and names the fields returned (active packages, renewal period, auto-renew). The first sentence also declares it is a compatibility alias of cloud_subscription_list, which disambiguates it from that sibling, though the meta-framing crowds out the actual purpose.

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?

Calling it a 'compatibility alias' implies it is interchangeable with cloud_subscription_list, which is useful routing information. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of any prerequisite or alternative beyond the alias equivalence.

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