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. It only states it's a query/list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (no output schema). This is inadequate for an 8-parameter tool with no annotation support.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action ('查询' - query) and resource ('数据地图血缘关系列表' - data map lineage relationship list), though it lacks depth. No wasted words, but it's overly terse given the tool's complexity.

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 with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the purpose of lineage relationships, how filtering works (e.g., with SrcEntityId/DstEntityId), pagination behavior, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters documented in Chinese (e.g., '源实体ID' for SrcEntityId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between SrcEntityId/DstEntityId or how fuzzy matching works for SrcEntityName/DstEntityName. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 '查询数据地图血缘关系列表' (Query data map lineage relationship list) restates the tool name 'ListLineageRelationships' in Chinese, making it essentially a tautology. It doesn't specify what 'lineage relationships' are, what 'data map' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'GetLineageRelationship' or 'ListLineages'.

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. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetLineageRelationship' (which likely retrieves a single relationship) or 'ListLineages' (which might list lineage entities rather than relationships).

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