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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '读取' (read) implies this is likely a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. The bracketed '[application delivery]' prefix provides helpful context, though it could be more integrated into the sentence structure.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (beyond mentioning '物料和工单状态' - materials and work order status), doesn't indicate if this is a single record lookup versus a list operation, and provides no context about error conditions or typical usage patterns. Given the complexity implied by three required parameters and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in Chinese. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: '读取部署单使用的物料和工单状态' (read deployment order materials and work order status). It specifies the verb '读取' (read) and the resource '部署单' (deployment order), making it clear this is a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change_request' or 'list_change_orders_by_origin', which appear to be related read operations.

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 multiple sibling tools that appear to retrieve change/order-related information (get_change_request, list_change_orders_by_origin, list_change_order_versions, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over those other options.

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