Theo dõi job MONA Cloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sandbox auto-detection trait, but omits the blocking/polling behavior implied by wait, timeout_sec, and interval_sec, and says nothing about return shape or failure modes. For a status-waiting tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the main action leads and the sandbox caveat follows. It is efficient, though it earns brevity at the cost of omitting polling behavior.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what wait=true does, how timeout_sec/interval_sec drive the polling loop, or what a job status result looks like, so it cannot invoke the tool with full confidence.

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 only 20% (only sandbox is documented in schema), well below 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for sandbox (auto-detected, no header needed) and implies job_id via 'theo ID', but wait, timeout_sec, and interval_sec remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 job thật hoặc sandbox theo ID' (read real or sandbox job by ID), and the title 'Theo dõi job MONA Cloud' confirms it is a MONA Cloud job-status tracker. It is distinguishable from the sibling vibecloud_job_status via the MONA Cloud naming, though the description itself does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibecloud_job_status. The note 'API tự nhận diện sandbox nên không cần header' is an invocation hint, not a when-to-use or exclusion statement, so an agent gets no tool-selection direction.

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