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 the tool creates a metric and returns the created object, which implies a write operation. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the metric is editable/deletable, rate limits, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return information. It's efficient with no wasted words. However, the second sentence ('Returns the log-based metric object...') could be integrated more smoothly, and it slightly repeats 'request' unnecessarily.

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 with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the return value. The description mentions the return but lacks specifics (e.g., format, structure). For a mutation tool in a monitoring/logging context, more detail 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%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could mention if configuration is passed elsewhere (e.g., in request body). Since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.

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: 'Create a metric based on your ingested logs in your organization.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('metric'), and source ('ingested logs'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'create' tools like 'create_apm_config_metrics' or 'create_rum_config_metrics', which also create metrics from different data sources.

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 logs ingested first), compare it to other metric-creation tools (like 'create_apm_config_metrics'), or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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