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 for behavioral disclosure. 'List monitors' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. 'Common filters supported' suggests some filtering capability but doesn't detail what those filters are or how they work.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words ('List monitors (common filters supported)'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds clarifying information in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted verbiage 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is insufficient. While concise, it doesn't explain what 'monitors' are in this context, what format the listing returns, whether authentication is required, or how the 'common filters' work given the empty parameter schema. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this listing operation.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'common filters supported' which might imply filtering capabilities, but since the schema shows no parameters, this creates some ambiguity. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('monitors'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_monitors' or 'get_monitors', which appear to serve similar listing/searching functions. The mention of 'common filters supported' adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate it from alternatives.

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 'search_monitors', 'get_monitors', and 'get_monitor_by_id' available, there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over those search or retrieval tools. The mention of 'common filters supported' hints at some capability but doesn't clarify usage context or exclusions.

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