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 creates a metric and returns the object, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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: one stating the purpose and one describing the return. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence could be more concise by integrating return info into the first, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the metric object contains, how it's used, potential side effects, or error scenarios. For a tool that likely involves configuration changes, 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., request body), but given zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 states the tool 'Create[s] a metric based on your organization's RUM data,' which provides a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('metric'), but it lacks specificity about what kind of metric (e.g., custom, aggregated) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_apm_config_metrics' or 'create_logs_config_metrics.' This makes it vague in distinguishing its exact purpose within the broader context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing RUM data), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' or 'create_rum_applications.' This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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