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 what the tool does at a high level ('获取数据地图数据库模式信息') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, potential side effects, rate limits, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this 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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations.

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's apparent complexity (involving data map database schemas) and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how it's structured, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns metadata or structural information, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and output.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the input schema. The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'Id', with detailed format explanation. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add context about the parameter's role.

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 '获取数据地图数据库模式信息' (Get data map database schema information) states the purpose clearly in Chinese, but it's somewhat vague. It specifies the resource ('数据地图数据库模式信息') but doesn't clarify what '获取' (get) entails - whether it retrieves metadata, structure, or details. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'GetCatalog', 'GetDatabase', or 'ListSchemas', which might have overlapping functions.

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. With many sibling tools like 'GetCatalog', 'GetDatabase', 'ListSchemas', and 'GetTable', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The user must infer usage from the tool name and parameter alone.

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