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. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., status, timestamps). For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('任务实例的详情' meaning 'task instance details'), making it immediately understandable. Every word contributes directly to the purpose.

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 (a read operation with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., JSON structure, fields like status or execution time), which is critical since there's no output schema. For a tool that retrieves specific instance data, more context on the return value is needed to be fully helpful.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('任务实例的唯一标识符' meaning 'unique identifier of the task instance'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 '获取任务实例的详情' translates to 'Get details of a task instance', which clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('task instance details'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetTask' or 'GetTaskInstanceLog', which also retrieve task-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task instance ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'GetTask' (for task definitions) or 'GetTaskInstanceLog' (for logs). Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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