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 what the tool does ('get list'), without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, or any pagination behavior (despite parameters for PageSize and PageNumber). For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 ('获取上游任务实例列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a listing tool with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'upstream' means in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 (Id, PageSize, PageNumber are all documented in Chinese), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'Id' relates to upstream instances, default behaviors, or parameter interactions. With high 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 '获取上游任务实例列表' (Get upstream task instances list) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('上游任务实例列表' - upstream task instances list), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'ListDownstreamTaskInstances' or 'ListTaskInstances', leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes 'upstream' instances different.

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 are multiple related listing tools (e.g., ListDownstreamTaskInstances, ListTaskInstances, ListTasks), but the description doesn't explain when 'upstream' instances are needed, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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