Mọi dịch vụ đang chạy

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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it discloses the scope of what is aggregated (VPS/databases plus virtual accounts/webhooks) and the title suggests a read-only status view. However, it never explicitly says the operation is non-mutating, what 'Gom' returns, or whether stopped/failed resources are included.

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 description is short and free of fluff, with the resource scope listed front-loaded. It loses a point because the colloquial 'Gom' and the ambiguous 'cùng' chain could be clearer while staying concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect back and how this aggregated view differs from dedicated list tools. It names resource categories but omits return shape, status semantics, and any exclusions, leaving a zero-parameter tool under-specified.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 an action ('Gom' = gather/aggregate) over explicit resources: MONA Cloud VPS/databases and MONA Pay virtual accounts/webhooks. This makes the overall purpose reasonably clear and separates it from single-resource siblings, though 'Gom' is colloquial and the exact output is left implicit.

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 is given for when to use this tool instead of the many relevant siblings such as cloud_services_list, monapay_list_virtual_accounts, or monapay_list_webhooks. The description implies an aggregate overview but never states the intended selection condition.

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