DataWorks 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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Create' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 brief (two sentences) but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The first sentence is a tautology that adds no value, and the second sentence is meta-instruction about MCP Resources rather than tool functionality. While it's not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information about the tool.

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 (10 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'data quality evaluation task' entails, what happens after creation, how it relates to other data quality tools, or what the expected outcomes are. For a creation tool with significant parameter complexity and no structured behavioral hints, the description provides almost no contextual information.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any parameters, their purposes, or relationships. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 '创建数据质量监控' (Create data quality monitoring) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTask' in Chinese. It lacks specificity about what resource is being created (a task for evaluating data quality) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstance' or 'CreateDataQualityRule'. The description provides no meaningful verb+resource combination beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'CreateDataQualityRule' or 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstance', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The second sentence is purely meta-instruction about MCP Resources, not usage guidance.

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