schema

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys that the tool is read-only and returns enum values. While it doesn't detail error handling or auth, the behavioral traits are sufficiently clear for a simple schema lookup.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the purpose, usage timing, and examples of returned values, leaving little ambiguity.

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 schema already fully describes the parameter. The description adds value by detailing the types of valid values returned for each resource (e.g., palettes, aggregators), enhancing understanding beyond the raw enum list.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get valid enum values for Datadog API fields.' It lists concrete examples (palettes, widget types, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific resources.

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'before creating or updating Datadog resources,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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