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 discloses key behavioral traits: the idempotent behavior (returning older embed for duplicate queries) and hints at complexity with template variables via external docs. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or output format, but adds useful context beyond a basic 'creates' statement.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a critical note and a reference for advanced features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation action and idempotency, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what the returned embed contains. For a creation tool with no structured annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate here. It earns a baseline 4 because it compensates by explaining behavioral aspects relevant to invocation, like the duplicate query handling.

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: 'Creates a new embeddable graph.' It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('embeddable graph'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_graph_embeds' or 'get_graph_embed', which are read operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 clear usage context with the note about duplicate queries returning existing embeds, which helps avoid unnecessary calls. It also references template variables with a documentation link for advanced use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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