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 states '获取实际工时明细' (retrieve actual effort details), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise with a single phrase, front-loaded with the context '[Project Management]'. There is no wasted text, but it may be overly brief given the lack of other guidance. Every word earns its place, though more detail could improve completeness.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a list tool in a project management context with many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'organizationId') documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or providing examples. Baseline is 3 since 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 '[Project Management] 获取实际工时明细' states the general purpose (retrieve actual effort details in project management context) but lacks specificity. It uses a generic verb '获取' (get/retrieve) without distinguishing from similar tools like 'list_current_user_effort_records' or 'list_estimated_efforts' among the siblings. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 sibling tools like 'list_current_user_effort_records' and 'list_estimated_efforts', the description does not indicate whether this tool lists all effort records, filtered records, or has specific scoping. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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