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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only query, an asynchronous poll, or has side effects. It doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the operation is incomplete. The description is too vague to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 that is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name, making it inefficient for agent comprehension.

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 querying asynchronous operation results and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the result contains, how to interpret it, or handle edge cases. For a tool that likely returns status or outcome data, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 the single parameter 'OperationId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 '获取创建工作流实例结果' (Get create workflow instance result) is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., 'retrieve', 'fetch', 'query') or clarify what type of result is obtained. While it mentions 'workflow instance', it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'GetWorkflowInstance' or 'ListWorkflowInstances'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an OperationId from CreateWorkflowInstances), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the parameter description alone, which is insufficient.

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