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 states 'get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the task doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('获取任务的详情') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context if needed.

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 'task details' include in the response, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and many sibling alternatives, more context is needed to understand its full scope and usage.

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 (Id and ProjectEnv) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 '获取任务的详情' (Get task details) states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('task details'), but it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like GetTaskInstance, GetTaskInstanceLog, or ListTasks. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to tasks (GetTaskInstance, ListTasks, UpdateTask, etc.), the description offers no context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other task-related operations.

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