Alibaba Cloud Observability MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively describes the search functionality, pagination behavior (page_size range 1-100, defaults), and return data structure. It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (功能概述, 使用场景, etc.), but contains some redundancy. The Args/Returns section repeats information already covered in the 返回数据结构 section, and the 查询示例 section adds minimal practical value, making the description longer than necessary.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context including purpose, usage scenarios, search constraints, pagination behavior, and detailed return data structure. The main gap is lack of authentication/rate limit information, but otherwise covers most essential aspects.

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 100%, providing solid parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining app_name_query must be part of app name (not natural language) and providing region_id format examples ('cn-hangzhou'), but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool searches for ARMS applications by name and returns basic information including app name, PID, user ID, and type. It uses specific verbs ('搜索ARMS应用', '根据应用名称搜索') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ARMS applications rather than SLS operations or trace queries.

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 explicitly provides three usage scenarios: when needing to find apps by specific name, when needing PIDs for other ARMS operations, and when checking user-owned app lists. It also includes search condition guidance (app_name_query must be part of app name, not natural language) and pagination instructions.

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