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. However, 'Create incident' offers no information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes an 'incident' in this context. It fails to describe the creation process, success criteria, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While 'Create incident' is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The two-word description lacks necessary detail about the tool's purpose and usage, failing to provide a clear, front-loaded explanation. This brevity results in ambiguity, not efficiency, as it omits critical information that would help an agent understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what an 'incident' is, how creation works, what data might be returned, or any operational constraints. For a mutation tool in a context-rich server with many siblings, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.

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% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description avoids misleading additions, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion in a parameter-less context.

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 'Create incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'incidents_create' without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'incident', but fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'incidents_get', 'incidents_list', or 'incidents_update', leaving the agent unclear about what specifically this creation entails compared to other incident-related 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or distinctions from sibling tools such as 'incidents_update' or 'create_cases', which might handle similar incident-related creation tasks. This absence leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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