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. It states 'Get all...' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes archived policies, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all...') and wastes no space on redundant or verbose explanations.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the return format (e.g., list of policy objects), scope limitations, or any prerequisites. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 warranted as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all monitor configuration policies'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_monitor' or 'list_monitors' by specifying 'policies' rather than monitors themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_monitor_policy' (singular), which might retrieve a specific policy.

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 siblings like 'get_monitor_policy' (singular), 'get_monitors', and 'search_monitors', there's no indication whether this retrieves all policies unconditionally, whether filtering is available elsewhere, or what the scope of 'all' entails (e.g., organization-wide vs. user-specific).

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