Retrieve baseline instance lists affected by events to identify and manage dependencies in Alibaba Cloud DataWorks workflows.
获取事件影响的基线实例列表
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "GetTopicInfluence"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TopicId | No | 事件的ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, 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?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '基线实例' (baseline instances) are, how they relate to events, what the return data includes, or any behavioral aspects like safety or performance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the TopicId parameter documented as '事件的ID' (event ID). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid TopicId or how it relates to '基线实例' (baseline instances). 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 '获取事件影响的基线实例列表' (Get a list of baseline instances affected by an event) specifies a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('基线实例列表' - baseline instance list) with some context about events. However, it's somewhat vague about what '基线实例' (baseline instances) refers to in this domain, and it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like GetTopic, GetTaskInstance, or ListTopics, which might retrieve related information.
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 TopicId), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., GetTopic for topic details or ListTopics for listing topics). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.