MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Activate' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens if the account already has scanning activated, or what the expected response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states what the tool does. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool ('Activate') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Agentless scan options' are, what 'Activate' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and results.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100% with empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Activate') and the resource ('Agentless scan options for an AWS account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws', which appears to be a related but distinct 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, timing considerations, or comparison with the sibling 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws' tool that appears in the same domain.

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