AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all members or paginated results, what format the output takes, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 to the point - just two phrases. The bracketed category at the beginning provides some organizational context without being verbose. However, the second phrase could be more specific about what 'resource members' means in this system.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'resource member' in this system, what the output format looks like, or how this tool relates to other member-management tools in the sibling set. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between resourceType and resourceId, or provide examples of valid resource types beyond what's hinted in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of resource members'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set, nor does it specify what 'resource members' are in this context beyond what the parameters indicate.

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. While there are sibling tools like 'list_organization_members' and 'get_organization_member_info', the description doesn't explain how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The bracketed '[Resource Member Management]' suggests a category but offers no practical usage context.

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