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. The description only states the purpose without any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on invalid input, or the format of the output. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 lineage relationships and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a lineage relationship entails, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be useful, but it falls short.

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 the single parameter 'Id' documented as '血缘关系ID' (lineage relationship ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this schema, such as format examples or constraints. 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 '获取数据地图血缘关系' (Get data map lineage relationship) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It identifies the resource (lineage relationship) and implies retrieval (get), but doesn't specify what aspect of lineage relationships is obtained (e.g., details, structure, or metadata) or how it differs from sibling tools like ListLineageRelationships or GetLineage. It's vague but not tautological.

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, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as ListLineageRelationships (which likely lists multiple) or GetLineage (which might retrieve lineage for a different entity). No explicit or implied usage instructions are present.

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