DataWorks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves logs but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, the format or size of returned logs, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented for a tool that presumably accesses execution data.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

For a tool that retrieves execution logs with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the logs contain, their format, whether they're truncated, or how to interpret them. The absence of behavioral context and output information makes this description incomplete for practical use.

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 ('Id' and 'RunNumber') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('任务实例的运行日志' meaning 'task instance execution logs'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'GetTaskInstance' or 'ListTaskInstanceOperationLogs', which prevents a perfect score.

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 are no explicit instructions about prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or references to sibling tools like 'GetTaskInstance' or 'ListTaskInstanceOperationLogs' that might serve related purposes.

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