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 reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral information 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 extremely concise (one Chinese phrase) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it fails to provide the minimal necessary information about what the tool actually does. Conciseness without substance doesn't earn a high score.

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 data management systems implied by sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'collection information' includes, what the return format is, or how this differs from related collection operations. For a tool in this context with rich sibling functionality, the description should provide more orientation.

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 (the single parameter 'Id' is documented as '集合对象Id' - collection object ID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as where to find this ID or format requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取数据地图集合信息' (Get data map collection information) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetMetaCollection' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what action is performed (retrieve details? list contents? get metadata?) or what resource is targeted beyond the vague 'collection information'. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ListMetaCollections' or 'GetMetaCollection' (if there were multiple get operations).

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ListMetaCollections' (likely for listing all collections) and 'GetMetaCollection' requiring a specific ID, there's no indication whether this tool retrieves metadata, contents, or something else about a single collection. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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