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 the action ('获取任务实例列表') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by PageSize and PageNumber parameters but not described), or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 19 parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase ('获取任务实例列表'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly structured for its brevity.

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 complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high parameter count and lack of output information make this description incomplete for practical 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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how TaskId and TaskIds interact) or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 '获取任务实例列表' (Get task instance list) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('任务实例列表' - task instance list), which establishes the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what distinguishes this tool from other list tools like ListTasks or ListWorkflowInstances, making it somewhat vague in comparison to siblings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from ListTasks (which might list task definitions) or ListWorkflowInstances (which might list workflow instances). This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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