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 the action ('Search') without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'template'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, offering minimal insight into how the tool behaves.

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 bracketed words and a phrase. It's front-loaded but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There's no wasted text, but it lacks substance. A higher score is reserved for descriptions that balance brevity with useful content.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection and use, especially given the complexity implied by multiple pagination parameters.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a search over 'application templates'. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., pagination modes) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 '[application delivery] Search application templates' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource ('application templates') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Search' and doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_app_tags' or 'search_workitems'. This is borderline tautological with only a bracketed context hint.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other search or list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_applications', 'search_app_tags'). This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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