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 indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 sentence that is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary detail, making it efficient yet incomplete. While not verbose, it fails to provide sufficient context, reducing its effectiveness.

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 implied by the tool name (involving security monitoring and rule suppressions), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to supplement it, and the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or operational constraints. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed for missing parameter information.

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's purpose ('Get the list of suppressions that would affect a rule'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of suppressions', but lacks detail on what 'affect a rule' means or the scope of the operation. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' or 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions', leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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