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. The description only states 'query' (a read operation), but it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by PageNum and PageSize parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, error handling). For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, 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 ('查询权限申请单列表') that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list query tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, auth), usage context compared to siblings, and output format. For a tool with rich input schema but no structured output or annotations, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., QueryType, MaxComputeProjectName, EndTime). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, since coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to compensate significantly.

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 '查询权限申请单列表' (Query permission application order list) clearly states the verb ('query') and resource ('permission application order list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetPermissionApplyOrderDetail' (which retrieves details of a specific order) or 'ApprovePermissionApplyOrder' (which approves orders), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this list tool versus those alternatives.

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. For example, it doesn't specify that this is for listing multiple orders with filtering, while 'GetPermissionApplyOrderDetail' is for retrieving a single order's details. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other permission-related tools in the sibling list.

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