DataWorks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about 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 side effects. For a complex creation tool with 10 parameters, this complete lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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 with just two lines, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line is a tautology, and the second line is a meta-instruction about tool invocation format. While structurally simple, it fails to convey essential information that would help an AI agent use the tool effectively.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'data quality rule' is in this context, what system it operates on, what happens after creation, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would have to rely entirely on the parameter names and schema descriptions without any higher-level context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds zero information about any parameters, their relationships, or usage patterns. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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 '创建质量规则' (Create quality rule) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'CreateDataQualityRule' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of quality rule, for what system, or what resources it affects. While the name itself suggests creating a data quality rule, the description adds no value beyond the name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or any context about when this creation operation is appropriate. The note about the 'MCP Resource' is a meta-instruction about tool usage format, not guidance about when to invoke this specific tool.

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