MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a monitor' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response might contain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is too brief to be helpful - it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context. A single sentence with slightly more detail would be more valuable than this minimal phrasing.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose statement, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a monitor is, what it monitors, required configuration, expected response format, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the extensive sibling tool list (which includes many monitoring-related tools), this description provides insufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates (none).

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 monitor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'create_monitor_v1'. It provides no additional specificity about what type of monitor is being created, what resources are involved, or what distinguishes this from other creation tools like 'create_dashboard' or 'create_slo' in the sibling list. While the verb 'create' is clear, the resource 'monitor' remains vague without context about monitoring domains.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools for creating different resources (e.g., create_dashboard, create_slo, create_synthetics_tests), but the description offers no context about what a 'monitor' is, when it should be created, or what prerequisites might be required. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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