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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 sentence with zero waste: 'Create a custom framework.' It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words, making it highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (a creation operation in cloud security management), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what a custom framework entails, required inputs (though none are defined in the schema), expected output (no output schema), and behavioral context. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Create a custom framework' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('custom framework'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'custom framework' is or its purpose, and while it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation, it lacks specificity about the framework's domain (cloud security management).

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 are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' or 'update_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' for related operations.

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