DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('get field information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, returns structured data, or has performance considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output, but given its brevity and clarity, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity of metadata retrieval tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'field information' includes (e.g., data types, constraints), how results are returned, or any prerequisites. With siblings like 'GetTable' and 'ListColumns', more context is needed to distinguish this tool's specific role and usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'Id' documented as 'ID, refer to [metadata entity concept description]'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying what type of ID (e.g., column ID, table ID) or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 '获取数据地图数据表字段信息' (Get data map data table field information) states a purpose but is vague. It specifies the resource ('data map data table field information') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetTable' or 'ListColumns' that might retrieve related metadata. The purpose is understandable but not precise enough for optimal tool selection.

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. With siblings like 'GetTable' (for table metadata) and 'ListColumns' (for listing columns), the description doesn't clarify if this tool retrieves detailed field metadata for a specific column or table, or when it should be preferred over other tools. This omission leaves usage context ambiguous.

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