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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full definition' entails. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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: 'Get the full definition of an app.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 retrieving an app definition, the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and minimal detail leave the agent guessing about the return format, error conditions, and how to identify the target app. For a tool that likely requires context (e.g., app ID), this is inadequate despite the zero parameters.

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 lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It implies the tool retrieves an app definition without specifying which app, but this is a minor gap given the zero-parameter context.

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 as 'Get the full definition of an app,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('app'), but lacks detail on what constitutes a 'full definition' or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_app_builder_apps' in the sibling list. It avoids tautology but doesn't provide 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_app_builder_apps' or 'create_app_builder_apps'. The agent must infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient.

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