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 it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what user context it operates in (current user? specified user?), whether there are rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description mentions the return format but doesn't provide details about pagination, empty results, or data freshness.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, the second sentence could be more clearly integrated with the first for better flow, and the description could benefit from front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.

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?

For a permission retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the permissions list takes, whether it includes inherited permissions, how permissions are structured, or what authentication/authorization is required. The description mentions 'associated user's roles' but doesn't clarify how this association is determined or whether the tool accepts user identification parameters.

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 parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no need for parameter explanation in the description.

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 'Get a user permission set' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes a 'permission set' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_permissions' or 'get_role_permissions' which appear in the sibling list. The description explains the return value ('Returns a list of the user's permissions granted by the associated user's roles') which helps clarify scope, but the purpose remains somewhat generic.

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_permissions', 'get_role_permissions', and 'get_user' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it should be preferred. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any exclusion criteria.

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