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 mentions 'high priority' which suggests urgency/priority behavior, but doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a read or write operation (though 'trigger' implies mutation), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if scanning fails, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with the essential condition.

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 this is a mutation tool (triggering scans) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what happens after invocation. It mentions the prerequisite but doesn't describe what the tool returns, how to check scan status, error conditions, or what 'high priority' means operationally. For a tool that presumably initiates potentially resource-intensive operations, more context would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on the action and prerequisites without attempting to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 ('Trigger the scan') and target ('AWS resource'), specifying 'with a high priority' as a key characteristic. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' by focusing on scanning rather than account management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scanning-related tools in the list.

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 one important prerequisite ('Agentless scanning must be activated for the AWS account'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives (like scheduled scans or other scanning methods), nor does it mention any other conditions or constraints beyond the activation requirement.

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