DataWorks 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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('创建' - create) without any behavioral context: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a creation tool with complex parameters, this lack of transparency is a critical gap.

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 (one sentence plus a meta-note) but not optimally structured. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the MCP Resource note is extraneous to the agent's understanding and disrupts flow. While concise, it lacks the density of information needed for a complex tool, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. The schema handles parameter details, but the description fails to provide the necessary context for a creation operation in a monitoring system, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 '创建自定义监控告警规则' (Create custom monitoring alert rule) states the basic verb and resource but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of monitoring (e.g., data pipeline, task instances) or how it differs from other alert-related tools like CreateDIAlarmRule, UpdateAlertRule, or DeleteAlertRule. The purpose is clear at a high level but insufficiently specific for an AI agent to distinguish it from alternatives.

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 (e.g., existing monitoring targets), when to choose CreateAlertRule over UpdateAlertRule, or how it relates to sibling tools like CreateDIAlarmRule. The note about MCP Resource is a meta-instruction for tool usage, not contextual guidance for the agent. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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