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. It mentions 'Get information' but fails to specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 brief and front-loaded with a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. However, the '[Code Management]' tag, while helpful, could be integrated more smoothly, and the lack of follow-up details slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three required parameters. It fails to explain what information is returned, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the three required parameters (organizationId, repositoryId, localId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about a change request' with a '[Code Management]' context tag, which clarifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('change request'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change_order' or 'list_change_requests', leaving the scope ambiguous between retrieving a single item versus listing multiple items.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_change_requests' (for listing) and 'get_change_order' (for similar single-item retrieval of orders), the description lacks explicit comparisons or context for selection, offering only basic functional intent.

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