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 the tool queries a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details error conditions. 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 phrase in Chinese ('查询数据源分享规则列表') that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list query operation.

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 low complexity (a list query with two optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, making it incomplete for fully informed agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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, fully documenting both parameters ('DataSourceId' and 'TargetProjectId') in Chinese. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. 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 '查询数据源分享规则列表' (Query data source sharing rule list) clearly states the verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('数据源分享规则列表' - data source sharing rule list), indicating it retrieves a list of sharing rules for data sources. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDataSource' or 'ListDataSources', which focus on data sources themselves rather than their sharing rules, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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, such as other list tools or related operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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