AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without addressing permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 extremely concise with just two Chinese characters and a bracketed context label, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error scenarios, or how this tool relates to the effort record system, leaving the agent with inadequate context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('登记实际工时' meaning 'record actual working hours') and resource ('Project Management' context), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_estimated_effort' or 'update_effort_record', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_estimated_effort' (for estimated hours) or 'update_effort_record' (for modifying existing records). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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