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 only states the action ('register') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation, what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or if there are side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it conveys, though what it conveys is minimal. Every word earns its place in this brief statement.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a lineage relationship is, what format the parameters should be in, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from related operations. The context demands more guidance for proper tool invocation.

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%, with all three parameters (SrcEntity, DstEntity, Task) having Chinese descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 '注册数据地图血缘关系' (Register data map lineage relationship) restates the tool name 'CreateLineageRelationship' in Chinese without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'register' entails operationally or distinguish this from sibling tools like GetLineageRelationship or DeleteLineageRelationship. This is essentially a tautology in another language.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like GetLineageRelationship and DeleteLineageRelationship exist, the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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