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. 'Get all' implies a read-only list operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' encompasses (e.g., active only, includes deleted). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 all Amazon EventBridge sources.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being retrieved.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. For a read operation with no structured support, it meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide a complete picture for effective use.

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 adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is assigned as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, and the absence of parameters is inherently clear.

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 'Get all Amazon EventBridge sources' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Amazon EventBridge sources'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (like 'get_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_aws_event_bridges'), but the specificity of 'EventBridge sources' provides adequate clarity for a standalone tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_integration_aws' (general AWS integration) and 'create_integration_aws_event_bridges' (creation counterpart), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or differentiation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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