MCP Datadog 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. It mentions aggregation into 'buckets of computed metrics and timeseries,' which implies a read-only analytical operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether it's a query or mutation. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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: 'The API endpoint to aggregate RUM events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of an aggregation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'aggregate RUM events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It specifies the verb (aggregate), resource (RUM events), and output format (buckets of computed metrics and timeseries). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' or 'aggregate_spans_analytics' beyond mentioning RUM events, which is implied but not stated as a distinction.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' and 'aggregate_spans_analytics', the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name alone.

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