[datadog · risk:low] Search and read logs from Datadog over a time range
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End of the time range (ISO 8601 or relative) | |
| from | No | Start of the time range (ISO 8601 or relative) | |
| query | Yes | Datadog log search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states 'search and read', suggesting a read-only operation, but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on no results. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on return format, error scenarios, and edge cases. Could be more complete for a tool with 3 parameters.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's reference to 'time range' adds slight context but largely mirrors schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Description uses clear verb 'Search and read' and specific resource 'logs from Datadog over a time range'. It fully conveys the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools, which focus on other domains (e.g., email, notes, weather).
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?
Description implies use for searching Datadog logs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. Context is clear but lacks depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
