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. It states '创建' (create) implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether this triggers immediate execution, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single Chinese phrase that's front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more context might be needed.

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 (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the created instance represents, how it relates to the task ID, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a creation tool in a data quality system, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no explanation of how Parameters JSON interacts with the task, or what ProjectId context is needed). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 '创建数据质量校验监控实例' (Create data quality evaluation monitoring instance) states the action and resource but is vague about what this actually does. It doesn't specify whether this instantiates a monitoring job, schedules an evaluation, or creates a configuration. Compared to sibling tools like 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTask' and 'GetDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstance', the distinction is unclear.

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. With siblings like 'CreateDataQualityEvaluationTask' (likely for creating the task definition) and 'ListDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstances' (for listing instances), there's no indication of the relationship or when this specific creation tool is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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