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 'Get the list', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get the list of interfaces of the device.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'network interfaces') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 minimal but incomplete. It lacks context about the device type, interface format, or return structure, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and contextual details to be fully 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), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 the list of interfaces of the device' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('interfaces of the device'), but it's vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what 'device' refers to (e.g., network device, server) or what 'interfaces' entails (e.g., network interfaces, API interfaces). It also doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_ndm_device' or 'get_ndm_devices', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device identification), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_ndm_device' or 'get_ndm_devices'. Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for reliable selection.

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