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 states 'Create a new file' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this creates commits automatically (though parameters suggest it does), error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. The '[Code Management]' prefix could be considered slightly redundant but doesn't significantly detract. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 file creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and trial-and-error for understanding this mutation operation.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new file') and the resource ('in a Codeup repository'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_file' or 'delete_file' beyond the basic action difference, and the '[Code Management]' prefix adds minimal value.

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 'update_file' or 'delete_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic action stated. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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