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-only operation ('Get the list'), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or the format of the returned list. For a 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted verbiage.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return format, which are important for a read operation. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 (empty schema). The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, aligning with the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add semantic details, earning a baseline high score for consistency.

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 action ('Get the list') and resource ('CSM Serverless Agents running on your hosts and containers'), making the purpose evident. It specifies 'all' to indicate comprehensiveness. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_agents' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_serverless', which would require a more specific distinction for a perfect score.

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, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools present (especially other 'get_csm_onboarding_' tools), the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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