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 discloses that the tool creates a new workflow (implying a write operation) and returns an ID, and mentions an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects, which are important for a creation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key requirement. There is no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the requirement more clearly.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and an authentication requirement but lacks details on the workflow creation process, expected inputs (if any beyond the empty schema), or error conditions. For a creation tool, more context would be beneficial 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% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameters (none), and the description does not need to compensate.

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 new workflow, returning the workflow ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('workflow'), and mentions the return value. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_instances' or other 'create_' tools, which would require more specific differentiation.

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 mentions an API requirement but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions relative to sibling tools. Without such information, the agent lacks 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.