AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '登记' (register/create) which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether this creates a new record or updates existing ones, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 parts: a domain context hint and the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more specificity. The structure is front-loaded with the essential 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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the tool returns, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. The context signals indicate significant complexity that isn't addressed in the description.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 '[Project Management] 登记预计工时' states the tool's purpose (register estimated effort) and includes a domain context hint, but it's vague about what specific resource or entity this applies to. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_effort_record' or 'update_estimated_effort', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_effort_record', 'list_estimated_efforts', and 'update_estimated_effort' available, there's no indication of the specific use case for this tool, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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