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. '终止' (stop/terminate) implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects downstream tasks, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical 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 phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context. The front-loaded nature makes the core function immediately clear.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, how it differs from suspension, or what happens to task dependencies. Given the complexity of stopping task instances in a workflow system, this minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 both parameters ('Ids' and 'Comment') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '终止任务实例' (Stop task instances) clearly states the action (stop/terminate) and target resource (task instances). It distinguishes from siblings like 'StopWorkflowInstances' and 'StopDIJob' by specifying task instances rather than workflows or DI jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'SuspendTaskInstances' which might be a similar operation.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate versus suspension or deletion, or what happens to dependent tasks. With multiple task-related tools in the sibling list (StopWorkflowInstances, SuspendTaskInstances, RerunTaskInstances), the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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