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 this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what 'all roles' means in context (e.g., all in the system, all accessible to the user). For a zero-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns all roles, including their names and their unique identifiers.' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details without any fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that likely returns a list of roles, it lacks details on response format (e.g., array structure, pagination), scope ('all' could mean system-wide or user-accessible), and how it differs from similar sibling tools. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.

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: 'Returns all roles, including their names and their unique identifiers.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('roles'), and what information is included. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_role' (singular) or 'roles_get'/'roles_list', which appear to be similar list/retrieval operations.

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_role' (singular retrieval), 'roles_get', and 'roles_list', there's no indication whether this tool returns a comprehensive list, whether it's paginated, or when to choose it over other role-fetching tools. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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