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. It only states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence with a context tag, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. It earns its place by stating the core action concisely.

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 complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, return format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'organizationId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are used to fetch effort details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 '获取预计工时明细' (gets estimated effort details) with a [Project Management] context tag, which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_estimated_effort' (singular) or 'list_effort_records' (actual records). The purpose is clear but vague in scope.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for planning vs. reporting), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_current_user_effort_records' or 'list_effort_records'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters, with no explicit instructions.

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