MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'When a snapshot is created, there is some delay before it is available,' indicating an asynchronous creation process with latency. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read or write operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'graph' refers to. The disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the bare name.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first states the action, and the second provides a critical behavioral note. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, though slightly terse given the lack of annotations.

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's apparent complexity (creating graph snapshots with asynchronous behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context: what 'graph' means, the snapshot's purpose, output format, error conditions, and whether this is a read or write operation. The note about delay is helpful but insufficient for safe invocation.

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 absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's action and behavior.

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 'Take graph snapshots' restates the tool name 'get_graph_snapshots' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses 'take' as a vague verb that doesn't clarify whether this creates, retrieves, or triggers snapshots. No resource context or scope is provided to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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. The note about delay after creation hints at a creation action but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare to other snapshot-related tools (none visible in siblings). This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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