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 and returns the rule, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that states the action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new notification rule') and adds value by specifying the return ('return the created rule'). Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) that would help an agent use it correctly. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness for a mutation operation.

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, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate since there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('notification rule for security signals'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security signals rather than other notification rule types like monitor or vulnerability rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools in the sibling list beyond the resource specificity.

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, context for creating security signal notification rules, or when other tools (like update or delete variants) might be more appropriate. 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.