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. '查询' (query) implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid AlertId. The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., alert details, status, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for a read operation in a complex system with many sibling tools.

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 AlertId documented as '报警ID，可调用[ListAlertMessages]获取' (Alert ID, can be obtained by calling ListAlertMessages). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 '查询报警信息' (Query alert information) states the general purpose but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being retrieved (e.g., details of a specific alert vs. general alert data) or how it differs from sibling tools like ListAlertMessages. The description is vague about scope and granularity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The input schema references ListAlertMessages as a source for AlertId values, but the description itself doesn't mention this prerequisite or differentiate usage from other alert-related tools like GetAlertRule or ListAlertMessages.

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