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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic 'what' but lacks context about usage, behavior, or output. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, more detail on permissions or response structure would improve completeness, though the low complexity keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description accurately reflects the lack of inputs without attempting to compensate for non-existent gaps.

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: 'Get the list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('configured log-based metrics'), and scope ('list' with 'definitions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metric' (singular) or 'aggregate_logs_analytics', which might retrieve similar data differently.

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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_logs_config_metric' for a single metric, 'aggregate_logs_analytics' for aggregated data), the lack of differentiation 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.