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 only states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes an 'execution' versus a 'change request'. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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—just two words plus a domain tag—with no wasted words. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'executions' are, how results are structured, or usage context. The schema handles parameters well, but the description fails to provide necessary operational and domain context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation (e.g., '分页尺寸参数，决定一页最多返回多少对象' for perPage). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage without extra value from the 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 'List change request executions' restates the tool name with minimal context. While it includes a domain tag '[application delivery]', it doesn't specify what 'executions' means or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_change_requests' or 'list_change_orders_by_origin'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 multiple sibling tools related to change requests (e.g., 'list_change_requests', 'get_change_request', 'list_change_orders_by_origin'), the description offers no differentiation, prerequisites, or context for selection. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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