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. While 'Returns a list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if the role doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 that there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like how the role is identified (implied by the name but not stated), what format the permissions list returns, or any error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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 already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all permissions for a single role'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_permissions' or 'get_role_users', which could provide similar or related information about roles and permissions.

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. There are many sibling tools related to roles and permissions (e.g., 'get_permissions', 'get_role_users', 'get_role'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify when this tool is appropriate versus when other tools might be better suited.

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