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. It only states it 'gets' partition details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it returns a single partition or multiple. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'partition details' include, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about partitions, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (TableId and Name) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. 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 '获取数据地图数据表的分区详情' (Get partition details of a data map data table) states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('分区详情' - partition details), but is vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ListPartitions'. It specifies '数据地图数据表' (data map data table) which provides some context, but lacks precision about what exactly is retrieved.

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 like 'ListPartitions' or 'GetTable'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual framing.

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