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 it retrieves role details without specifying whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not confirmed), what authentication or permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what format the return data takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. While it lacks detail, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word contributes to the core meaning, though more content would be needed for completeness.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the contextual information is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'role details' include, how the result is structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured role information, more context about the return format and usage constraints would be necessary.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information 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 '获取工作空间角色详情' (Get workspace role details) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetProjectRole' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about roles, it doesn't specify what kind of details are retrieved or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ListProjectRoles' or 'GetProjectMember' that also deal with project roles and members. The purpose is vague beyond the basic retrieval concept.

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. There's no mention of when this specific 'get details' operation is appropriate compared to 'ListProjectRoles' (which likely lists multiple roles) or 'GetProjectMember' (which deals with individual members rather than role definitions). The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.

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