DataWorks MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the logs come in. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero redundant information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of what the tool does.

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 list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (log format, structure), whether results are paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), or how this differs from similar logging tools. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly helpful.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters (Id, PageSize, PageNumber, Date). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取任务实例的操作日志列表' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (任务实例的操作日志列表/task instance operation logs list), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'ListTaskOperationLogs' or 'GetTaskInstanceLog', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific 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. With sibling tools like 'ListTaskOperationLogs' and 'GetTaskInstanceLog' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope, granularity, or use case. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios for invocation.

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