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. It states the tool adds a signal to an incident, implying a mutation operation, but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Add a security signal to an incident') followed by the benefits. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation linking security signals to incidents), the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details are provided, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency and response expectations. The description alone does not suffice for safe and effective tool invocation in a security context.

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 here since the tool likely operates on implicit or context-dependent inputs. With zero parameters, the baseline is high, and the description avoids unnecessary detail, earning a score of 4.

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 action ('Add a security signal to an incident') and the resource involved ('security signal', 'incident'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_incidents' or 'incidents_update', which might handle similar operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 mentions the benefits ('makes it possible to search for signals by incident and view them on the timeline'), which implies usage for linking signals to incidents for better visibility. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other incident or signal update tools), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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