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 states the tool performs a sharing action that generates a public URL, implying a mutation (changing dashboard visibility). However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_dashboard_public'), what happens if the dashboard is already public, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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: 'Share a specified private dashboard, generating a URL at which it can be publicly viewed.' It's front-loaded with the core action ('Share a specified private dashboard') and adds the outcome ('generating a URL...'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a mutation tool that changes dashboard visibility), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the generated URL or response format. The description mentions the outcome but doesn't detail what the tool returns (e.g., the URL structure, success indicators). For a tool that alters access controls, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though the schema is empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies the dashboard must be 'specified' (likely via context or another mechanism). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to document beyond what's implied.

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: 'Share a specified private dashboard, generating a URL at which it can be publicly viewed.' It uses specific verbs ('share', 'generating') and identifies the resource ('private dashboard'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_public_invitation' which might serve a similar sharing function.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a private dashboard first), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_public_invitation' or 'update_dashboard_public'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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