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. 'Retry' implies a mutation/action on a failed deployment, but the description doesn't specify what happens during retry, whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 with just two bracketed context words and the core action. While efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. Every word earns its place, but more words might be needed for adequate clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'retry' entails operationally, what happens to the machine being retried, what success/failure looks like, or how this differs from similar operations. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the core behavioral context is missing.

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 all parameters documented in Chinese ('企业Id', '流水线Id', etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide context about what these IDs represent. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

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 retries VM deploy machine, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'skip_vm_deploy_machine' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order' - it's unclear what 'retry' means versus 'skip' or 'resume' in this context. The bracketed context '[VM Deploy Order Management]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the specific action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., when a deploy machine has failed), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'skip_vm_deploy_machine' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order'. The description assumes the user already knows when retry is appropriate.

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