AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral information.

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 bracketed category '[Resource Member Management]' and the core statement 'Create a resource member'. There's no wasted language, though the category label adds minimal value. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action.

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 creation tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'resource member' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or the relationship between resource types and role names. The schema provides parameter details but the description fails to provide the necessary contextual understanding for effective tool use.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a resource member' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what a 'resource member' actually is. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_resource_member' and 'update_resource_member', it doesn't clarify what type of resource is being referenced (pipeline or hostGroup) or what 'member' means in this context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related operations. The sibling tools include 'list_resource_members' which would logically be used before this one, but this relationship isn't indicated.

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