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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'from your organization' entails (e.g., permissions). The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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 fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying 'specific'). Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'rum-based metric' is, how it's identified, what the return format looks like, or any prerequisites. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion, though it doesn't explain why no parameters are required (e.g., if context is inferred).

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific rum-based metric'), but is vague about what constitutes 'specific'—it doesn't clarify if this retrieves a single metric by ID, name, or another identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' by implying individual retrieval vs. aggregation, but lacks precision on the selection mechanism.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Siblings include 'get_rum_config_metrics' (plural) and 'aggregate_rum_analytics', but the description doesn't differentiate—e.g., it doesn't specify if this is for fetching configuration details vs. aggregated data or when to choose one over the other. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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