Datadog MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Datadog resources (e.g., GetApmRetentionFilter vs. GetLogsArchive), with clear descriptions that help differentiate them. However, some overlap exists in list operations across different resource types (e.g., ListAPIKeys, ListApplicationKeys) which could cause minor confusion, though their names and descriptions generally clarify the target resource.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern throughout: all use PascalCase with clear verb-noun combinations (e.g., GetIncident, ListSecurityMonitoringRules, ConvertExistingSecurityMonitoringRule). The naming convention is predictable and uniform across all 72 tools, making them easily readable and organized.
Tool Count2/5
With 72 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming for agents to navigate and understand the scope. While Datadog is a broad platform, this many tools suggests poor scoping and could lead to confusion, as typical well-scoped servers have 3-15 tools. The high count indicates a lack of curation or aggregation.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides extensive coverage of Datadog's API surface, including CRUD operations for incidents, logs, metrics, security monitoring, and more, with few obvious gaps. However, some areas like full lifecycle management for all resources (e.g., update/delete for certain entities) may be incomplete, but agents can generally work around this given the breadth of operations available.
Average 3/5 across 72 of 72 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination parameters and HTTP response codes (200, 400, 429) with examples, which adds some behavioral context about success/error handling and rate limiting. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or what happens when no rules exist. The response examples show 'unknown_type' which is unhelpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with sections for query parameters and responses, but it's inefficiently long due to redundant parameter documentation and verbose HTTP response examples with unhelpful 'unknown_type' placeholders. The core purpose ('List rules') is overly brief, while the response documentation adds bulk without corresponding value. The structure is logical but not optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a listing tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description should provide more context about what 'rules' means and how this tool fits into the broader API. The HTTP response documentation adds some completeness but with low-quality examples. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page[size]' and 'page[number]') fully documented in the schema with descriptions, examples, defaults, and constraints. The description repeats this same parameter information verbatim, adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List rules' which is a tautology of the tool name 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules'. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it doesn't specify what type of rules (security monitoring rules) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' or 'ListSecurityMonitoringSignals'. The description lacks specificity about the resource being listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' (for retrieving a single rule) or 'ListSecurityMonitoringSignals' (for listing signals). No context is provided about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this listing operation is appropriate versus other listing tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP response codes (200, 429) and error formats, which adds some behavioral context about rate limiting and success responses. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limit specifics, whether this is a read-only operation, or what 'unknown_type' in the response means operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a brief purpose statement followed by response documentation. However, the response documentation is overly detailed for a tool description (showing HTTP status codes and JSON examples) when an output schema exists, making it somewhat bloated. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear but could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain response structure. However, for a tool with no annotations and unclear purpose, it should provide more operational context about what 'on-demand concurrency cap' means and when this tool is useful. The response documentation partially compensates but doesn't address core usage questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get the on-demand concurrency cap' which is a tautology that restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what resource this applies to (e.g., account, service, workspace) or what a 'concurrency cap' means in practical terms. Compared to siblings like 'GetUser' or 'GetDowntime', it lacks specificity about the domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before configuring resources or in conjunction with other 'Get' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions HTTP response codes (200, 404, 429) and error formats, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'details' actually includes. The example response shows 'data': 'unknown_type' which is unhelpful for understanding the actual return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is poorly structured with excessive HTTP response documentation that belongs in an output schema rather than a description. The core purpose ('Get a signal's details') is buried under technical response details. While not verbose, it's inefficiently organized with information that doesn't help an AI agent understand when and how to use the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It focuses on HTTP response codes rather than explaining what 'details' means, how signals are identified, or the tool's role in the security monitoring context. The presence of an output schema means the description shouldn't document return values, but it still needs to provide better contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'signal_id' fully documented in both schema and description. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (both say 'The ID of the signal'), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a signal's details' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a security monitoring signal. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityMonitoringSignals' or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific get operation versus other related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus listing signals, or any contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it includes HTTP response codes and examples, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, or what happens with invalid UUIDs beyond generic error codes. The response examples show 'unknown_type' for data fields, which provides minimal practical guidance about return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is poorly structured with excessive HTTP response documentation that belongs in an API reference rather than an agent tool description. The core purpose is buried under technical details. While the initial sentence is concise, the bulk of the text (error codes, examples, content types) doesn't help an agent understand when and how to use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling specifics, and practical usage. The HTTP response documentation adds bulk without adding meaningful agent guidance about tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter information verbatim from the schema ('The UUID of the incident' and 'The UUID of the incident integration metadata'), adding no additional semantic context about format expectations, where to find these IDs, or relationships between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get incident integration metadata details' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what 'metadata details' specifically entail. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentIntegrations' - the agent would need to infer this retrieves specific metadata for a particular integration rather than general incident data or a list of integrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must deduce from the name and parameters that this retrieves metadata for a specific integration within a specific incident, but there's no explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'GetIncident' (general incident data) or 'ListIncidentIntegrations' (list of integrations). No prerequisites or context for usage is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally describes behavior. It mentions HTTP response codes and error formats, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'included' resources entail. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is poorly structured and verbose. It wastes space repeating parameter details already in the schema and includes extensive HTTP response documentation that belongs in an output schema. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary technical details, making it inefficient and hard to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides basic error handling context but misses behavioral details like authentication or rate limiting, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter definitions verbatim without adding any additional semantic context, such as format examples or relationship between incident_id and todo_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get incident todo details' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTodos' beyond mentioning 'todo details', making the purpose somewhat vague about what distinguishes this specific get operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTodos'. The description only lists parameters and responses without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP responses (e.g., 200, 400, 401, 403, 404, 429) which imply error handling and rate limiting, but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. The response examples are generic ('Bad Request' for multiple codes), adding limited value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose with extensive HTTP response details that are redundant or generic (e.g., repeated 'Bad Request' examples for multiple error codes). It's not front-loaded; the core purpose is stated briefly, followed by bloated response documentation that doesn't efficiently convey necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema implied by the 200 response example, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on authentication, error specifics, or sibling differentiation, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'incident_type_id' documented as 'The UUID of the incident type' in both the schema and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get incident type details' which clearly indicates a read operation on incident types, but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTypes' beyond the resource name, lacking specificity about scope or verb distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ListIncidentTypes' or 'GetIncident'. The description only describes the tool's function without context for selection among related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP response codes (200, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some context about error handling and rate limiting. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limit specifics, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the successful response contains beyond 'OK'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is poorly structured with redundant information. The first line 'Get a rule's details.' is useful, but the extensive HTTP response documentation (including duplicate error examples for 404 and 429) adds bulk without proportional value. The response format details belong in an output schema, not the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, and error handling specifics. The HTTP response documentation partially compensates but remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'rule_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the rule.' The description repeats this same information in the Path Parameters section, adding no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a rule's details' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a security monitoring rule. However, it doesn't specify what details are included or how this differs from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules' or 'GetRuleVersionHistory'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules' for browsing rules, or 'GetRuleVersionHistory' for historical data. Usage context is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes HTTP response codes (e.g., 403, 404, 429) which hint at authorization, not-found, and rate-limiting behaviors, but does not explicitly state these traits (e.g., 'requires authentication,' 'may be rate-limited'). The description adds some context but falls short of fully transparent behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, including extensive HTTP response details that are redundant with typical API behavior and not front-loaded. The core purpose is stated upfront but buried under unnecessary technical specifications, reducing clarity and efficiency for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by response examples) and 100% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error cases but lacks depth in usage context, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'metric_id' documented as 'The name of the span-based metric.' The description repeats this in a 'Path Parameters' section but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of metric names or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get a specific span-based metric from your organization,' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('span-based metric'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListSpansMetrics' or 'GetLogsMetric,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'ListSpansMetrics' for browsing metrics or other 'Get' tools for different resource types. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions HTTP responses (200, 404, 429) with error details, which adds useful behavioral context like rate limiting and error handling. However, it doesn't disclose other traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, or data freshness, which are important for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, including detailed HTTP response examples and properties that belong in an output schema. The core purpose is buried under technical details, making it less front-loaded and efficient. Sentences like 'Represents a user's association to a team' are redundant with the title, reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and one parameter, it provides some behavioral context (e.g., error responses) but lacks completeness in usage guidelines and transparency about operational aspects like permissions or limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_uuid' documented in the schema as a required string. The description repeats this as a path parameter but adds no additional meaning (e.g., format examples or source of the UUID). Since the schema already covers it adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a list of memberships for a user', which clearly indicates a read operation on user-team associations. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'memberships' specifically entail (e.g., team roles, permissions) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like GetUser or ListUserOrganizations, which might overlap in functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include GetUser, ListUserOrganizations, and ListRoleUsers, which might retrieve related user data, but the description doesn't clarify distinctions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some context on potential outcomes like authorization issues or rate limits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limit specifics, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured for its purpose. It includes extensive HTTP response details that are better suited for an output schema or annotations, cluttering the core description. The initial sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections add redundant information without enhancing usability, making it inefficient and not front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), the description includes basic purpose and parameter info, and an output schema exists (implied by response examples), so it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the structured data support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'filter_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the retention filter.' The description repeats this information in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 an APM retention filter.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('APM retention filter'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListApmRetentionFilters' or 'GetSecurityFilter', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListApmRetentionFilters' for listing filters or 'GetSecurityFilter' for similar retrieval operations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a filter ID from a list operation. Usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes HTTP response codes (e.g., 200, 400, 403, 404, 429) and error handling details, which adds some context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive data access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details and examples that are redundant with the output schema, cluttering the core information. Sentences like 'Get downtime detail by `downtime_id`.' are front-loaded, but the bulk of the text doesn't earn its place, making it inefficient 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers basic functionality and error responses, but without annotations, it misses behavioral traits like security or performance considerations. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks guidance on usage and sibling differentiation, making it only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('downtime_id' and 'include'). The description repeats this information in the 'Path Parameters' and 'Query Parameters' sections without adding new meaning or examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 downtime detail by `downtime_id`.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('downtime detail'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDowntimes' or 'GetIncident', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListDowntimes' for listing multiple downtimes or 'GetIncident' for related incident data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 401, 403, 404, 429) which hint at error conditions and rate limiting, but doesn't explicitly describe authentication needs, rate limit specifics, or what 'Get' entails operationally (e.g., read-only, safe). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that belong in an output schema rather than the description. It includes redundant parameter sections and multiple error examples, making it bloated and not front-loaded with essential usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values, which it does excessively. However, for a tool with no annotations and two parameters, it lacks context on when to use it versus siblings and behavioral traits, making it incomplete despite the output schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('incident_id' and 'include') fully. The description repeats this information verbatim without adding any extra meaning, syntax details, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get the details of an incident by `incident_id`', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'SearchIncidents' or 'ListIncidents', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'SearchIncidents' or 'ListIncidents'. It mentions parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling beyond the listed HTTP responses. The description includes response examples, but these are generic (e.g., 'unknown_type'), adding little practical value. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive, repetitive HTTP response details (e.g., multiple error examples with identical content) that don't add meaningful guidance. The core purpose is buried among unnecessary technical specifications, making it inefficient and hard to parse quickly. Sentences like 'If the `include[users]` query parameter is provided...' are useful but lost in the clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still falls short in providing a holistic understanding for an AI agent, especially without annotations to fill gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats that 'service_id' is required and mentions 'include' can fetch related users, but the schema already documents the enum values ('users', 'attachments'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 details of an incident service.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident service'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentServices,' which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions an optional 'include' parameter for related objects but doesn't explain when to use this tool over other incident-related tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentServices.' No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (e.g., 200, 400, 403, 404, 429), it doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., read-only, requires permissions, rate limits, or data format). The response examples are generic and don't clarify the actual data structure, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then includes extensive, redundant HTTP response details that clutter the description without adding value (e.g., repeating 'Bad Request' examples). This makes it harder to parse key information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., permissions, data format). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description's response section is redundant and unhelpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'archive_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats this information in a 'Path Parameters' section but doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find archive IDs or format examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a specific archive from your organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('archive'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ListLogsArchives', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'ListLogsArchives' for browsing archives or clarify that this tool is for retrieving details of a single, known archive. Without this context, an AI agent might struggle to choose between this and list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) with error details, which adds some context about potential failures and rate limits. However, it doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or how the data is structured beyond the vague example (e.g., 'unknown_type'), leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details that could be inferred from annotations or an output schema, cluttering the core purpose. The front-loaded sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections (e.g., repeated error examples) add unnecessary bulk without enhancing usability for an AI agent, making it inefficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, permissions). The presence of an output schema (implied by response details) reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still misses key contextual elements for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'custom_destination_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the custom destination.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, syntax, or format details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a specific custom destination in your organization.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('custom destination'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' (which appears to list multiple destinations), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific custom_destination_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' for listing multiple destinations. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication errors (403) and rate limits (429) in the responses, which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't cover key aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), permission requirements beyond authentication, or how errors are handled beyond HTTP codes. The response example with 'unknown_type' data is vague and unhelpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that clutter the core purpose. The front-loaded sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections are redundant and not concise, failing to earn their place in a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is somewhat complete but inefficient. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but the verbose response details add little value and distract from more useful context, such as usage guidelines or behavioral traits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It repeats the parameter description for 'role_id' ('The unique identifier of the role.') verbatim from the schema, which has 100% coverage. No additional semantics, such as format examples or constraints, are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a role in the organization specified by the role's `role_id`.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('role'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ListRoles' or other 'Get' tools in the server, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListRoles' for browsing roles or 'GetUser' for related user information, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) and example outputs, which adds some context on success and error handling. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or data format details, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, but it includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). The structure is somewhat cluttered with examples and error codes, reducing efficiency. It could be more concise by focusing on value beyond structured data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adds some context with response examples and error handling. However, for a list tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention behavioral aspects like pagination or sorting. It's minimally adequate but lacks depth for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get the list of APM retention filters', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('APM retention filters'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetApmRetentionFilter' (singular vs. plural), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from 'GetApmRetentionFilter' or other list tools. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details that belong in an output schema or annotations, not in the description. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the bulk of the text is redundant or misaligned with MCP best practices, making it inefficient and cluttered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by the response details) and 100% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error handling, but lacks context on authentication, rate limits, and sibling differentiation. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the input schema fully documenting the single required parameter 'archive_id'. The description repeats this parameter information in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationship to other parameters). This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' This specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('read roles'), and scope ('a given archive is restricted to'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListRoles' or 'ListRolePermissions', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like 'ListRoles' or 'GetRole' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP responses (e.g., 200, 400, 429) and includes error examples, which adds some context about potential failures and rate limits. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, pagination, data format specifics (e.g., 'unknown_type' in examples), or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that clutter the core purpose. It includes redundant information (e.g., repeating 'incident_id' description) and lengthy error examples that do not add value beyond basic error handling. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, but the subsequent sections are bloated and inefficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks annotations and provides minimal behavioral context beyond error responses. For a simple read operation with one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but could benefit from clarifying the relationship with sibling tools and usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'incident_id' clearly documented as 'The UUID of the incident.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Get all integration metadata for an incident.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('integration metadata for an incident'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncidentIntegration' (singular vs. plural), which might cause confusion without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'GetIncidentIntegration' (which might fetch a single integration) or 'ListIncidents' (which lists incidents themselves), leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP responses (e.g., 200, 400, 429) and includes example error structures, which adds some context on error handling and rate limits. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination, sorting, filtering options, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a list operation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that clutter the core purpose. It includes redundant error examples and properties like 'unknown_type' in JSON examples, which add little value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, but subsequent sections are bloated and inefficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a list operation with no annotations but an output schema (implied by response details), the description partially covers context by including response structures and error codes. However, it misses key aspects like pagination, filtering, or authentication needs, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the output schema providing some return value information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'incident_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The UUID of the incident'. The description repeats this in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, such as format details or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get all todos for an incident', specifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('todos for an incident'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetIncidentTodo', which appears to fetch a single todo, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as authentication or incident access, and does not mention sibling tools like 'GetIncidentTodo' for single-todo retrieval or 'ListIncidents' for broader context, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication errors (403), not found (404), and rate limits (429), which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic 'returns a list' purpose. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that belong in an output schema or annotations, not in the description. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary technical documentation, making it inefficient and not front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals) and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters in detail. However, it lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations. The inclusion of HTTP response details is redundant with structured fields, making it partially complete but cluttered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the input schema fully documenting the single 'role_id' parameter. The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim ('The unique identifier of the role.'), adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no extra param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of all permissions for a single role.' This is a specific verb ('Returns a list') and resource ('permissions for a single role'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListUserPermissions' or 'ListRoles', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListUserPermissions' or 'GetRole', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is needing a role_id, but this is covered by the input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions authentication errors (403) and rate limits (429), it lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is read-only or mutative, response formats beyond basic examples, or pagination behavior. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes redundant parameter details (already in the schema) and extensive HTTP response documentation that belongs in an output schema. The core purpose is buried under technical details, making it inefficient for quick understanding by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by the detailed response documentation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but inefficient. It covers basic purpose and error cases but lacks behavioral context like permissions or usage guidelines. The redundancy with structured data reduces its effectiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter information in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a user organization' and specifies it returns 'user information and all organizations joined by this user.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'GetUser' or 'ListUsers,' which reduces the score from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetUser' or 'ListUsers,' nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool uses 'Metrics without Limits™' and includes error responses (e.g., 429 for rate limits), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits beyond the 429 hint, or what 'estimated cardinality' entails in practice. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-like estimation tool with no 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with sections for parameters and responses, but it is overly verbose, including detailed HTTP response examples and error codes that could be inferred from annotations or output schema. The core purpose is stated upfront, but extraneous details reduce efficiency, making it less concise than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description does not fully address the tool's operational context, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description lists parameters in a 'Path Parameters' and 'Query Parameters' section, but this largely repeats schema information without adding significant meaning (e.g., explaining interactions between parameters). Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the estimated cardinality for a metric with a given tag, percentile and number of aggregations configuration using Metrics without Limits™.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('estimated cardinality'), and key parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are mostly 'Get' or 'List' operations for various resources, making this tool's focus on estimation distinct but not directly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions the tool's function but does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'ListVolumesByMetricName' or 'ListTagConfigurationByName', which might be related. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by documenting query parameters and response codes (200, 400, 403, 429), which helps the agent understand input/output behavior and error conditions. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination mechanics beyond 'page[next_record_id]', or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then duplicates the entire parameter documentation from the schema, followed by lengthy response details. This creates redundancy and makes it harder to scan. The response examples with 'unknown_type' placeholders add little value. A more concise approach would focus on unique insights not in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response documentation), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and responses but lacks context about the tool's role in the broader system (e.g., how it relates to sibling usage tools). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description could better integrate with the structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim, adding no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide extra value like usage examples or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 hourly usage by product family.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('hourly usage by product family'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetUsageApplicationSecurityMonitoring' or 'GetUsageLambdaTracedInvocations', which appear to be more specific variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools. The only implicit usage hint is the parameter documentation, but there's no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address permissions (e.g., auth needs hinted by 401/403 responses), rate limits (429 response), or error handling specifics. The HTTP response codes are listed but not explained in practical terms, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it's bloated by extensive HTTP response documentation (e.g., multiple error codes with repetitive examples) that adds little value beyond what an agent might infer from standard API patterns. This reduces efficiency, though the initial sentence is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is partially complete. It lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details, but the presence of an output schema (implied by response documentation) reduces the need to explain return values. However, without annotations, it should do more to cover permissions and error handling nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('team_id' and 'include') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'include[users]' adds related users, but this is redundant with the schema's enum. It doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or usage examples beyond what's in the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 details of an incident team.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident team'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncident' or 'ListIncidentTeams,' which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that including the 'include' parameter adds related users, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ListIncidentTeams' for multiple teams or 'GetIncident' for broader incident details). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authorization errors (403) and rate limits (429), which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only, response format beyond examples, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it's bloated with extensive HTTP response details (e.g., multiple error codes and examples) that could be streamlined. While structured, the verbosity reduces efficiency, as not all details add value beyond what might be inferred from context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by the response examples) and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and includes error handling, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'metric_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The name of the log-based metric.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific log-based metric'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ListLogsMetrics' or 'GetSpansMetric', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool unique for log-based metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'ListLogsMetrics' (likely for listing multiple metrics) and 'GetSpansMetric' (for spans metrics), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) with examples, which adds behavioral context like error handling and rate limiting. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., default values, maximum pages), authentication requirements, or data format specifics beyond the basic examples, leaving gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes redundant parameter details (already in the schema) and lengthy HTTP response sections with repetitive examples (e.g., multiple errors shown as 'Bad Request'). The core purpose is buried under unnecessary details, making it inefficient and hard to parse quickly. Sentences like 'Get a rule's version history.' are concise, but the rest adds clutter without proportional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, pagination, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and includes response codes, but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings and detailed behavioral traits. The output schema exists, so explaining return values isn't needed, but the description could better address pagination mechanics and error scenarios to fully support an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (rule_id, page[size], page[number]) with descriptions and defaults. The description repeats this information in the 'Path Parameters' and 'Query Parameters' sections but doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how pagination works or the significance of rule_id. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a rule's version history.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rule's version history'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' or 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules', which might retrieve current rule data or lists, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing a specific rule ID, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' for current rule details or 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules' for rule lists. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions HTTP responses (200, 403, 404, 429) with error examples, which adds some context on failure modes. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what 'details' include, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive security data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes extensive, repetitive HTTP response details that could be condensed. The link to external documentation is useful, but the response examples are verbose and similar across error codes, reducing efficiency. It could be more streamlined while retaining essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and error responses but lacks context on security implications, usage scenarios, or integration with sibling tools. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'security_filter_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this parameter info in a 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the details of a specific security filter.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('security filter'), making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityFilters' or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule', which reduces clarity in a crowded context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions a security filter guide for examples but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'ListSecurityFilters' for listing multiple filters. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what the 'data' field contains in the success response, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with detailed HTTP response documentation that might be redundant if an output schema exists. The structure includes markdown formatting, but some sections (like repeated error examples) could be more streamlined. It's not excessively long but includes elements that may not earn their place in a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context signals—1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema—the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error handling, but as a security-related tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data sensitivity). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks depth for full agent guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats the parameter information from the input schema ('suppression_id' is required and described as 'The ID of the suppression rule'), which has 100% schema description coverage. It adds no additional meaning, such as format examples, ID sourcing, or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the details of a specific suppression rule.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('suppression rule'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityMonitoringSuppressions' or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListSecurityMonitoringSuppressions' for listing all rules or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' for related rules, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving a specific suppression's details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 includes HTTP response codes (e.g., 200, 400, 429) which hint at success, errors, and rate limits, but does not explicitly describe authentication needs, rate limiting behavior, or side effects. The mention of '429: Too many requests' implies rate limits but lacks details, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that are redundant given the presence of an output schema. It includes repetitive error examples and formatting that does not efficiently convey essential information. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary technical documentation, reducing clarity and conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and response codes, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('service_name' and 'schema_version') well-documented in the input schema. The description repeats parameter names and types but adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as categorizing them as 'Path Parameters' and 'Query Parameters'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without significant enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a single service definition from the Datadog Service Catalog.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('service definition'), making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListServiceDefinitions' beyond the singular vs. plural naming, which is implied but not explicitly stated in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'ListServiceDefinitions' for multiple definitions) or any context-specific usage scenarios. The absence of such guidance leaves the agent without explicit direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implicitly describes a read-only operation through 'List', but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, or rate limits. The inclusion of HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) adds some behavioral context about error conditions and rate limiting, but lacks details on authentication needs or what 'application keys' represent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly long and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details that belong in an output schema, and repeats parameter information already in the schema. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary sections. While the initial sentence is clear, the rest adds clutter without proportional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by response details), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and includes error responses, but lacks context about what 'application keys' are, their use cases, or relationship to other resources. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still misses higher-level context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter information in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all application keys available for your org'. This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('application keys') with scope ('for your org'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListAPIKeys' or other list tools, which would require explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 are multiple sibling list tools (e.g., ListAPIKeys, ListUsers), but no indication of when this specific tool for application keys is appropriate versus others. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP responses (e.g., 200, 400, 429) and includes examples, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, discuss authentication needs, rate limits beyond the 429 error, or detail pagination or data format constraints beyond the example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose but includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists. While structured with sections, it could be more concise by focusing on value-added information rather than repeating error examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema likely present), the description covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like read-only status or usage guidelines. It includes response examples, which helps, but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations and sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter names and purposes but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'include' affects 'included' in responses or providing usage examples for 'filter[attachment_type]'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get all attachments for a given incident,' specifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('attachments'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetIncident' or 'SearchIncidents' by focusing on attachments, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing incident, or comparisons to other attachment-related tools, which could be inferred from sibling names but isn't stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination parameters and filtering, and includes HTTP response codes with examples, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics beyond status codes. The response examples are generic ('unknown_type'), limiting usefulness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with detailed parameter and response sections that largely duplicate the schema. While structured, it includes redundant information (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions) and lengthy HTTP response examples with generic placeholders ('unknown_type'), which add bulk without proportional value. It could be more concise by focusing on unique insights.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters, and the output schema handles return values, reducing the need for detailed response explanations. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication, rate limits, and error handling specifics, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The generic response examples limit completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the 'filter' parameter's purpose and mentions the 'include' effect on the response, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 all incident teams for the requesting user's organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident teams'), and the scope ('for the requesting user's organization') is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncidentTeam' (singular) or 'ListIncidentServices', which might have similar listing patterns but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions an optional 'include[users]' parameter effect but doesn't compare to other listing tools (e.g., 'ListIncidentServices' for services instead of teams) or explain prerequisites like authentication needs. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'tag configuration' entails (e.g., structure, format). The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, but it includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists. The structure is clear but verbose for a tool with one parameter and good schema coverage. Some sentences (e.g., repeated error examples) don't earn their place in a concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema likely present), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and error responses. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., what 'tag configuration' returns), which would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'metric_name' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats 'The name of the metric' but adds no extra meaning (e.g., format examples, constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the tag configuration for the given metric name.' This is a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('tag configuration'), and the metric_name parameter is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTagConfigurations' or 'ListTagsByMetricName', which appear related but have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListTagConfigurations' or 'ListTagsByMetricName', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the time constraint ('over the previous hour') and includes error responses (e.g., 400, 403, 429), which adds some context. However, it fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or data format specifics, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extensive, repetitive error response details that could be condensed. The error examples are redundant (e.g., multiple 'Bad Request' entries), and the response properties lack specificity, making the text longer than necessary without enhancing clarity. This reduces efficiency and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response examples), the description covers basic purpose and errors. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or data interpretation, which are important for operational use. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it meets a minimal threshold but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'metric_name' clearly documented. The description repeats this information without adding extra meaning, such as format examples or constraints beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, this baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, even though no additional value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View indexed tag key-value pairs for a given metric name over the previous hour.' It specifies the verb ('view'), resource ('tag key-value pairs'), and scope ('for a given metric name over the previous hour'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTagConfigurationByName' or 'ListTagConfigurations', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'ListTagConfigurationByName' or 'ListTagConfigurations', leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This results in a minimal score as it offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the conversion action but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits (implied by the 429 response but not explicitly stated), side effects, or error handling beyond HTTP codes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely requires authentication and has operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that clutter the core purpose. It includes redundant parameter information and multiple error examples, making it less efficient and harder to parse quickly for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (conversion operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses key behavioral aspects like authentication needs or rate limits, which are crucial for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'rule_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this information in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, such as format examples or sourcing instructions, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Convert an existing rule from JSON to Terraform') and identifies the target resource ('datadog_security_monitoring_rule'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' by focusing on conversion rather than retrieval, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool takes no arguments and includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) with examples, which adds some context on success and error conditions. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'order of your archives' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential security or usage implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and input note, but it includes extensive, verbose HTTP response details that may be unnecessary if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). This adds bulk without proportional value, reducing efficiency. However, the initial sentences are clear, so it's not overly bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and input info, which is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details (e.g., auth needs, data format), making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the structured data support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description reinforces this by stating 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which adds clarity but is redundant. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adequately addresses this dimension without needing to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the current order of your archives.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('order of your archives'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLogsArchive' or 'ListLogsArchives', which likely retrieve different archive-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: it notes 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which implies when to use it based on input requirements. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'GetLogsArchive' or 'ListLogsArchives'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by detailing HTTP responses (200, 403, 429) and examples, which helps understand error handling and output format. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). This adds length without proportional value, though it's structured with clear sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides adequate context by explaining the tool's purpose and response behavior. However, with no annotations, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like safety or permissions to be fully complete for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on output and behavior instead, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get the list of configured logs archives with their definitions,' specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('logs archives'), and scope ('configured' with 'definitions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetLogsArchive' (singular) and 'ListLogsGet' (general logs), but could be more explicit about differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for listing archives, it doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare to siblings like 'GetLogsArchiveOrder' or 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) and examples, which adds some context about success and error conditions. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'custom destinations' entail in practice. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). The response examples and error codes add length without necessarily earning their place, making it somewhat verbose for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose and response formats adequately. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it misses opportunities to clarify behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, organizational scope) and usage distinctions, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on responses. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the list of configured custom destinations in your organization with their definitions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('custom destinations'), and scope ('in your organization'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLogsCustomDestination' (singular vs. plural), which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetLogsCustomDestination' for retrieving a single destination, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) with examples, which adds some context about success, authorization errors, and rate limiting. However, it lacks details on permissions required, pagination, sorting, or other operational behaviors that would help an agent use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it includes extensive HTTP response details that may be redundant if an output schema exists (which it does, per context signals). The response examples and properties add length without necessarily earning their place, as structured fields could handle this. It's somewhat verbose for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the basic purpose and some error responses, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limit specifics. For a no-parameter tool, it's minimally viable but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLogsMetric' or 'ListLogsGet', which appear to be related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'GetLogsMetric' or 'ListLogsGet'. The agent must infer usage based on the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all suppression rules' entails (e.g., scope, filters). The HTTP response examples add some error handling context (403, 429), but this is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the list of all suppression rules.'), but it's bloated with extensive HTTP response documentation (200, 403, 429 examples) that repeats what an output schema could cover. This adds unnecessary length without providing additional value for tool selection, reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters (schema coverage 100%) and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to detail inputs or return values. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects like permissions or scoping, and the HTTP response details are redundant with output schema. It's minimally complete but could better address usage and transparency gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the list of all suppression rules.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('suppression rules'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringSuppression' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringSuppression' (which retrieves a single rule) or 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules' (which might list different types of rules), leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone. There's no context about prerequisites, scoping, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) and examples, which adds some context about success and error conditions, but it fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed HTTP response documentation. However, it includes extensive examples and formatting that may be excessive for a tool description, potentially diluting the core information. While not overly verbose, it could be more streamlined by focusing on essential guidance rather than API-like documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and response formats but lacks behavioral details like authentication or usage context. With annotations absent, it should provide more operational guidance to be fully helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description appropriately focuses on other aspects without repeating schema details, earning a high baseline score. It adds value by not cluttering with redundant parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the list of configured span-based metrics with their definitions.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('span-based metrics'), and scope ('configured' with 'definitions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSpansMetric' or 'ListSpansGet', which might have overlapping or related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'GetSpansMetric' or 'ListSpansGet', leaving the agent without clear usage instructions. This omission reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes response details (e.g., 200, 403, 404, 429) which adds context on error handling and rate limiting, but lacks information on authentication requirements, permissions, or side effects, making it incomplete for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details that clutter the core purpose. It includes redundant information (e.g., repeating parameter details) and lacks front-loading of key information, making it inefficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response details), the description is mostly complete. It covers the basic operation and error cases, but could improve by integrating with sibling tools or clarifying behavioral aspects, keeping it from a score of 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this information without adding extra meaning or context, such as format examples or usage tips, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a user in the organization specified by the user's `user_id`.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('a user'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ListUsers' or 'GetUserMemberships', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ListUsers' for listing multiple users or 'GetUserMemberships' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) and examples, which adds context beyond basic listing, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or mutation risks. It's adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly long and redundant, with extensive parameter and response sections that duplicate the schema. It's not front-loaded; the core purpose is stated upfront but buried in verbose details. Sentences like the parameter listings don't earn their place, reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and responses, and with an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could better address usage context and behavioral traits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details verbatim from the schema, adding no extra meaning or context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'List all API keys available for your account,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListApplicationKeys' or 'ListUsers,' which are also list operations for different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as filtering or pagination scenarios, or how it relates to other list tools in the sibling set. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds some useful context: it describes pagination behavior via 'page[offset]' and 'page[limit]', includes error responses (403, 429), and mentions that responses include JSON with 'data' and 'included' arrays. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent or safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive details about HTTP responses (200, 403, 429) with examples and properties, which are redundant since an output schema exists. The core purpose is buried under unnecessary technical details. A more concise version would focus on the tool's intent and usage, leaving response formats to the structured schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the basic purpose, parameters, and some behavioral aspects like pagination and error responses. However, it lacks guidance on usage relative to siblings and doesn't fully address behavioral transparency gaps (e.g., auth, rate limits). For a list operation with good schema coverage, this is mostly complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the parameter information in the 'Query Parameters' section, which adds no new semantic value beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide additional insights like parameter interactions or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 all scheduled downtimes.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scheduled downtimes'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'GetDowntime' (which likely retrieves a single downtime), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'GetDowntime' or explain that this tool is for listing multiple downtimes while 'GetDowntime' is for retrieving a specific one. There's also no information about prerequisites, authentication, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and includes details like pagination parameters and response formats, which adds context. However, it misses critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a tool with organizational scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, with extensive HTTP response details (including full JSON examples for multiple status codes) that belong in an output schema or API documentation, not a tool description. The core purpose is buried under redundant information, making it inefficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination and inclusions), the description covers key aspects like parameters and response structure, and an output schema exists (implied by the detailed responses). However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., auth, limits) and usage guidelines reduces completeness, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the parameter explanations verbatim from the schema (e.g., 'Specifies which types of related objects should be included in the response'), adding no additional semantic value beyond what is already structured. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 all incidents for the user's organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('incidents'), and scope ('user's organization'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'SearchIncidents', which might offer filtering capabilities, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'SearchIncidents' or 'GetIncident'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes pagination behavior ('page[size]', 'page[offset]'), filtering capabilities ('filter'), and inclusion options ('include'), which are useful. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits (though error responses hint at 429), or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). The description adds value but misses key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, examples) that are redundant with an output schema (which exists). The core purpose is buried among unnecessary technical specifications, making it less front-loaded and efficient. Sentences like the error response examples do not earn their place in a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context signals (4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and response behavior, and the output schema handles return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and clearer usage guidelines, but it's adequate for a list operation with good schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., 'filter' and 'include' explanations) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It provides an example for 'include[users]' effect, which adds minor context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 all incident services uploaded for the requesting user's organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('incident services'), and scope ('requesting user's organization'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetIncidentService' or 'ListIncidents', which is why it doesn't achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that including 'users' adds related users to the response, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetIncidentService' (for a single service) or 'SearchIncidents' (for broader searches). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 401, 403, 429) and error handling details, which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long and poorly structured for an MCP tool definition. It includes detailed HTTP response documentation that belongs in API documentation rather than an agent-facing tool description. The core purpose is buried under technical details that don't help an AI agent select or invoke the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single parameter with 100% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema (implied by the response documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic functionality and includes error handling details, though it could better address authentication and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'include_deleted'. The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what's in the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'all incident types', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetIncidentType' or 'ListIncidents', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'GetIncidentType' (which appears to fetch a single incident type) or 'ListIncidents' (which lists incidents rather than types). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is 'Updated every 24 hours,' indicating a caching behavior, and includes error responses (e.g., 429 for rate limits), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response structure beyond basic HTTP codes, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, including extensive HTTP response details that clutter the core purpose. It mixes high-level intent with low-level API documentation, making it less front-loaded and efficient. Sentences like 'Updated every 24 hours' are useful, but the bulk of text does not earn its place for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is mostly complete. It includes behavioral notes (e.g., update frequency) and error handling, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the lack of usage guidelines and cluttered structure slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'metric_name' clearly documented. The description repeats this in a 'Path Parameters' section but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns dashboards, monitors, notebooks, and SLOs that a metric is stored in, if any.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and the resource types (dashboards, monitors, notebooks, SLOs) with a metric as input. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTagsByMetricName' or 'ListVolumesByMetricName', which also list metric-related items, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions that data is 'Updated every 24 hours,' which implies a caching or freshness constraint, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ListTagsByMetricName' or 'ListVolumesByMetricName' for metric-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implicitly indicates a read operation ('Gets') and includes pagination details (page size/number), sorting, and filtering, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits (though 429 error is listed), or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then redundantly repeats parameter and response details that are already in the schema and output schema, including full HTTP response examples. This adds unnecessary length without new value, violating conciseness principles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and key behaviors like pagination and sorting. However, the lack of usage guidelines and some behavioral details (e.g., auth needs) prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details verbatim from the schema without adding extra meaning (e.g., clarifying 'filter' semantics beyond 'given string' or 'sort' options beyond listing them). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('all users of a role'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListUsers' or 'ListRolePermissions' that might handle similar user/role data, which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'ListUsers' and 'ListRoles' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for role-specific user listings or general user management, leaving the agent to guess about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by detailing HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) with examples, which helps the agent understand success and error conditions. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is poorly structured and verbose. It front-loads the purpose clearly but then dedicates excessive space to HTTP response examples (including full JSON snippets), which could be summarized or omitted if an output schema exists. The content is not efficiently organized, with redundant details that don't add proportional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and response behaviors, but with no annotations and sibling tools present, it should ideally clarify distinctions and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks guidance on when to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it correctly implies no required inputs by focusing on responses. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the list of configured security filters with their definitions.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('security filters'), and scope ('list' with 'definitions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityFilter' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'GetSecurityFilter' (singular) and 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules' (similar listing pattern), there's no indication of whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtering options, or specific use cases. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by detailing error responses (403, 404, 429) and the success response format, which helps the agent understand potential failures and output structure. However, it lacks information on rate limits, pagination, or caching behavior, leaving gaps in operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured for an MCP tool definition. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that are redundant with structured output schemas. The core purpose is buried among technical specifications, making it less front-loaded and efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response details), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and response formats, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication needs. The output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter information in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a user permission set' with the specific action 'Returns a list of the user's permissions granted by the associated user's roles.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetUser' or 'ListRolePermissions' by focusing on permission retrieval rather than user details or role-specific permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the list, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication requirements implied by the 403 error, or compare it to similar tools like 'ListRolePermissions' or 'GetUserMemberships'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes pagination details (e.g., 'page[size]' max of 100) and error responses (e.g., 429 for rate limits), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks information on permissions, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves data access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, including extensive HTTP response details (e.g., multiple error codes with examples) that are redundant with typical API conventions and output schemas. This clutter detracts from core information, making it less efficient for an AI agent to parse. The front-loaded purpose is clear, but the bulk of the text does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response details), the description is reasonably complete. It covers key aspects like query syntax, pagination, and error handling, which are crucial for usage. However, the inclusion of verbose HTTP response examples adds noise without substantial value, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed parameter explanations, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some schema details (e.g., for 'query' and 'page[size]'), adding minimal extra value. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for incidents matching a certain query.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('incidents'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListIncidents' or 'GetIncident', which might offer different scopes or functionalities, so it doesn't reach 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions query parameters but does not explain scenarios where this search tool is preferred over other incident-related tools (e.g., 'ListIncidents' for unfiltered lists or 'GetIncident' for single incidents). This lack of contextual usage advice limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by detailing pagination (via page[size] and page[number]), sorting options, and filtering capabilities, which are useful beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover rate limits (implied by the 429 response but not explicitly stated), authentication needs (implied by the 403 response but not explained), or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Returns' suggests it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose by repeating parameter details already in the schema and including extensive HTTP response examples. While structured with sections, it includes redundant information (e.g., response properties and examples) that could be omitted if an output schema exists, reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, filtering) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and error responses, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth details). The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them in depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details (e.g., for filter, page[size], sort) without adding significant new meaning, such as examples for filter usage or clarification on filter[id] format. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all roles, including their names and their unique identifiers.' This specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('roles'), and scope ('all'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetRole' (which likely fetches a single role), leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'GetRole' (for single roles) or 'ListRoleUsers' (for users in roles), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a list endpoint and includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) with examples, adding context on success and error handling. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond cursor usage, which are critical for a search tool with potential constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, including redundant parameter details and extensive HTTP response examples that duplicate what an output schema might provide. It lacks front-loading of key information, with the core purpose buried in the first sentence. Sentences like 'Both this endpoint and the POST endpoint can be used interchangeably' add minimal value, making the structure inefficient and cluttered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with six parameters and an output schema (implied by response examples), the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose, parameters, and responses, but with no annotations and redundant details, it misses behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details in a 'Query Parameters' section, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights like format examples or usage tips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'returns security signals that match a search query,' specifying the verb ('returns') and resource ('security signals'). It distinguishes from a POST endpoint by noting interchangeability but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetSecurityMonitoringSignal' or 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules,' which limits full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing security signals with search queries and mentions interchangeability with a POST endpoint, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetSecurityMonitoringSignal' or 'SearchIncidents,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in usage clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a list'), implies pagination behavior through the query parameters, and includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) with examples, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read-only operation, mention rate limits beyond the 429 response, or detail error handling beyond the examples.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (purpose, query parameters, responses), but it's overly verbose. The repeated parameter details and extensive HTTP response examples with JSON could be streamlined, as much of this information is redundant with the schema and output schema. The core purpose is stated upfront, but subsequent sections don't earn their place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a paginated list operation), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the response examples), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and response formats, though it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details like authentication requirements. The output schema information reduces the need for return value explanations in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (page[size], page[number], schema_version) with defaults, examples, and enum values. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('all service definitions from the Datadog Service Catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like ListAPIKeys, ListUsers, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes service definitions unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), typical use cases, or how it differs from other list operations in the sibling tools. The absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that custom metrics may return null for ingested volumes, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other constraints implied by the HTTP responses (e.g., 403 Forbidden, 429 Too Many Requests). The description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extensive, repetitive HTTP response details that could be condensed or omitted, as they don't add significant value beyond what might be inferred from structured fields. The 'Path Parameters' section duplicates schema info unnecessarily. While not overly verbose, it has wasted content that reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by the response examples), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, a key behavioral note about null returns, and error responses. However, it could improve by adding more context on usage or constraints, but it's adequate for a read operation with structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'metric_name' documented as 'The name of the metric.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View distinct metrics volumes for the given metric name.' This specifies the verb ('view') and resource ('distinct metrics volumes'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListTagsByMetricName' or 'ListMetricAssets', which might handle related but different data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It mentions that 'Custom metrics generated in-app from other products will return `null` for ingested volumes,' which is a usage note but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over other list or get tools in the sibling set. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are named, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds value by specifying the endpoint's restriction to the Government site and detailing HTTP responses (200, 403, 404, 429) with examples, which helps understand error handling and success conditions. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or data format beyond the basic examples, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured, including extensive HTTP response details (e.g., status codes, content types, examples) that might be redundant if an output schema exists. It front-loads the purpose but buries it in unnecessary technical documentation, making it less efficient and harder to parse quickly. Sentences like the response examples do not earn their place in a concise tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context: 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage, an output schema exists (implied by the response details), and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, a key restriction (Government site), parameter info, and response behaviors. However, the inclusion of verbose HTTP details may be excessive, and it could benefit from more guidance on sibling differentiation or operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'agent_rule_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats this parameter info in a 'Path Parameters' section but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but offers no extra insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the details of a specific agent rule.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('agent rule'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListCloudWorkloadSecurityAgentRules' or other 'Get' tools, which slightly limits its clarity in a crowded context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance with a note: 'This endpoint should only be used for the Government (US1-FED) site.' This implies a specific context or restriction. However, it does not offer explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'ListCloudWorkloadSecurityAgentRules') or broader when/when-not guidance, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like site restrictions (Government-only) and error responses (403, 429), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or data format beyond examples. This partial disclosure is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, including extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that are redundant with an output schema. This clutters the core purpose and usage note, making it less front-loaded and efficient. Sentences like 'Responses:' and example JSON do not earn their place in a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and 0 parameters, the description is somewhat complete with purpose and usage constraints. However, it lacks context on what 'agent rules' entail, behavioral details like rate limits, and does not fully compensate for missing annotations, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned optional query parameters if any existed. Baseline is 4 due to no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get the list of agent rules,' which clearly indicates its purpose as a read operation. However, it lacks specificity about what 'agent rules' are (e.g., security rules, configuration rules) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCloudWorkloadSecurityAgentRule' (singular) or 'ListSecurityMonitoringRules,' making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context with a note: 'This endpoint should only be used for the Government (US1-FED) site,' which clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for non-government sites, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, filtering options, and preview features, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects (though 'Returns' suggests read-only). The description doesn't contradict any annotations, as there are none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It mixes tool purpose, usage instructions, parameter details, and HTTP response examples in a single block. The front-loaded purpose is clear, but subsequent sections (e.g., detailed query parameters and response examples) are redundant with the schema and output schema, making it unnecessarily long and cluttered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, filtering, pagination, and includes response examples, though some details (like error handling) are redundant with the output schema. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but the description still adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning pagination parameters and filtering, but it doesn't provide additional context or examples not covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all metrics that can be configured in the Metrics Summary page or with Metrics without Limits™ (matching additional filters if specified).' It specifies the resource (metrics with tag configurations) and the action (returns/list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListActiveMetricConfigurations' or 'ListTagConfigurationByName', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning pagination and filtering capabilities, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare with 'ListActiveMetricConfigurations' or 'ListTagConfigurationByName' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read operation ('Get') and includes pagination details (page size/number), sorting, and filtering capabilities. However, it lacks information on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling specifics beyond HTTP codes, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then redundantly lists parameters already covered in the schema and includes extensive HTTP response details that could be omitted or summarized. The inclusion of full JSON examples for error responses adds unnecessary length without proportional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, pagination, filtering), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the scope (includes all users), parameter usage, and response structure. With an output schema likely present (implied by context signals), the detailed response documentation is somewhat redundant but still contributes to completeness for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all users in the organization'), specifying it includes deactivated or unverified users. This distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like 'GetUser' which likely retrieves a single user, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it mentions including deactivated/unverified users, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable or when to choose other tools like 'GetUser' or 'ListUserOrganizations'. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the deprecation status (important behavioral context), includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) with explanations, and describes authentication requirements (403 indicates authorization needs). It doesn't mention rate limits beyond the 429 response, but covers key behavioral aspects for a deprecated API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long and poorly structured for an AI agent. It includes detailed HTTP response documentation with examples that belong in an output schema (which exists). The deprecation warning is front-loaded appropriately, but the bulk of the text (response codes, examples, error details) is redundant information that should be in structured fields rather than the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides essential context about deprecation and authorization requirements. The description is complete enough for the agent to understand this is a deprecated read operation with time-based filtering, though the excessive response documentation adds noise rather than value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the same parameter information verbatim from the schema without adding any additional semantic context. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get hourly usage for application security' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('hourly usage for application security'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetHourlyUsage' or 'GetUsageLambdaTracedInvocations'. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance by noting that this endpoint is deprecated and pointing to an alternative API ('Get hourly usage by product family API'). This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and provides a clear alternative. However, it doesn't specify when this deprecated tool might still be appropriate (e.g., for legacy systems).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond what the input schema provides: it explains data availability timing (cost data available by the 16th of the following month), deprecation status, access restrictions (parent-level organizations only), and includes detailed HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) with examples. This provides good behavioral transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured for an MCP tool definition. It includes extensive HTTP response documentation that belongs in API documentation rather than an MCP description. The core purpose is buried among deprecation warnings, access notes, and response examples. While some information is valuable, the presentation isn't front-loaded or efficiently organized for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (cost reporting with timing constraints), the description provides substantial context: deprecation status, access restrictions, data availability timing, and parameter details. With an output schema present (implied by the response documentation), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the inclusion of full HTTP response documentation makes it more complete than necessary for an MCP context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (start_month, end_month) fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this parameter information in the 'Query Parameters' section but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get cost across multi-org account' and 'Cost by org data for a given month', which specifies the verb (get), resource (cost), and scope (multi-org, by month). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg' or 'GetHistoricalCostByOrg', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: it notes that the endpoint is deprecated and recommends using '/historical_cost' instead, and specifies it's only accessible for parent-level organizations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg' or 'GetHistoricalCostByOrg' from the sibling list, nor does it provide clear when-not-to-use guidance beyond the deprecation warning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the availability timeline for cost data (by the 16th of the following month) and access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). It also mentions rate limits implicitly through the 429 error response. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, potential side effects, or response format beyond the basic examples, leaving some gaps for a mutation-free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and key guidelines, but it includes extensive, redundant parameter details and response examples that duplicate information from the schema. The 'Query Parameters' and 'Responses' sections are verbose and could be trimmed, as they don't add value beyond structured fields. While not overly long, it lacks efficiency, with sentences that don't all earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (historical cost retrieval with multiple parameters), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, parameters (though redundant), and error responses. Since an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could better integrate with sibling tools and provide more behavioral context, but it's adequate for the task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter details verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no extra param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 historical cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical cost'), and distinguishes the scope ('multi-org and single root-org accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCostByOrg' or 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it specifies that cost data becomes available by the 16th of the following month and that it's only accessible for parent-level organizations, with a link to documentation. This gives practical constraints and prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'GetCostByOrg' or 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg', so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the data availability timing (current month, around 12th), access restrictions (parent-level organizations only), and includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) with examples. However, it lacks details on rate limits beyond the 429 error mention, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). The description adds useful context but doesn't fully cover all behavioral aspects for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, but it includes redundant parameter details that are already in the schema and extensive HTTP response examples that could be condensed. The structure is logical but verbose, with some sentences (like the parameter descriptions) not earning their place as they duplicate schema content. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations, but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema indicated by context signals), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, parameters (though redundant), and behavioral aspects like responses. The output schema exists (per context signals), so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could better address sibling differentiation and authentication details to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('view' and 'include_connected_accounts') fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 projected cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('projected cost') with scope ('multi-org and single root-org accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetCostByOrg' or 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg' beyond mentioning it's for 'projected' costs, which is somewhat implied but not strongly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Projected cost data is only available for the current month and becomes available around the 12th of the month' and 'This endpoint is only accessible for parent-level organizations.' This gives temporal and access constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'GetEstimatedCostByOrg' for non-projected costs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it mentions pagination ('Results are paginated'), rate limiting ('rate limited to 300 requests per hour'), and includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 422, 429) with examples. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, data format specifics beyond JSON, or error handling nuances, preventing a score of 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with key information (purpose, pagination, usage, rate limits), but it becomes verbose with redundant parameter and response details that are already covered in the schema and output schema. The inclusion of extensive HTTP response examples and markdown links adds bulk without proportional value, reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, pagination, rate limits) and the presence of an output schema (implied by response details), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and responses adequately. However, it could improve by linking to sibling tools or providing more context on the 'spans syntax' mentioned, keeping it from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details in a 'Query Parameters' section, adding minimal value beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or usage examples for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns spans that match a span search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'/'returns') and resource ('spans'), and distinguishes it from other list tools by focusing on spans. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListLogsGet' or 'ListSpansMetrics', which might handle similar data types, so it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest spans.' This implies it's for recent data, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ListLogsGet' for logs or 'ListSpansMetrics' for metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions the deprecation status, which is crucial context, and includes HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 429) with examples, adding transparency about success, errors, authorization, and rate limits. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, pagination, or data format specifics beyond the examples, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured for an AI agent. It includes extensive HTTP response details (e.g., status codes, content types, examples) that are redundant with typical API conventions and could be inferred from annotations or output schemas. The front-loaded deprecation note is useful, but the subsequent sections are bloated with information that doesn't efficiently aid tool selection or invocation, reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a deprecated read operation with two parameters), the description is mostly complete. It covers the deprecation context, parameter details (though redundant with schema), and response behaviors. Since an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth. However, the excessive detail in responses slightly detracts from focus, but overall, it provides sufficient context for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the two parameters (start_hr and end_hr) with format details. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate with additional insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 hourly usage for observability pipelines.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('hourly usage for observability pipelines'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetHourlyUsage' or other usage-related tools, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by noting that the endpoint is deprecated and directing users to an alternative API: 'Hourly usage data for all products is now available in the [Get hourly usage by product family API].' This clearly indicates when not to use this tool and offers a specific alternative, which is optimal for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists active configurations but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description includes HTTP response codes (e.g., 429 for rate limiting), which adds some context, but lacks explicit behavioral guidance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but includes extensive, redundant details on HTTP responses and examples that are better suited for an output schema. This adds unnecessary length without enhancing tool understanding for an AI agent, reducing overall efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating the metric_name parameter and providing context for window[seconds] in the query parameters section. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic insights, warranting a baseline-adjusted score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List tags and aggregations that are actively queried') and resource ('for a given metric name'), with explicit scope ('on dashboards, notebooks, monitors, the Metrics Explorer, and using the API'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on active metric configurations rather than general listings or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to see active configurations for a specific metric, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ListTagConfigurations' or 'ListTagsByMetricName'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the mapping data is updated monthly, access is restricted to parent-level organizations, and it includes error responses (400, 403, 429) with details. This covers key aspects like permissions and rate limits, though it could mention if it's a read-only operation or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads useful information but then redundantly repeats parameter details already in the schema and includes extensive HTTP response examples that belong in an output schema. This adds unnecessary length without proportional value, reducing clarity and efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and behavioral aspects. Since an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the detailed response examples in the description are redundant but don't severely detract from completeness. It could improve by clarifying read-only status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (filter[month] and filter[view]) with descriptions, types, and defaults. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in a 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a mapping of billing dimensions to the corresponding keys') and resource ('for the supported usage metering public API endpoints'), with additional context about update cadence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on billing dimension mappings, which is unique among the listed sibling tools that handle incidents, logs, security, costs, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context on when to use this tool: for retrieving billing dimension mappings, with a monthly update cadence, and specifies that it's only accessible to parent-level organizations. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: pagination of results (with a link to documentation), search and filtering capabilities, and error handling for common status codes (400, 403, 429). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that are redundant with an output schema, and repeats parameter information already in the schema. The core purpose and usage guidance are buried among unnecessary details, making it inefficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and basic behavior, but the excessive detail in responses and parameter repetition detracts from clarity. The output schema reduces the need for response documentation, yet the description still includes it, creating redundancy rather than adding value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description includes a 'Query Parameters' section that repeats much of the schema information, adding minimal value beyond restating defaults and basic meanings. It provides some context like 'Defaults to '*' which means all indexes' for filter[indexes], but overall doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('list', 'search', 'filter') and resources ('logs'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on log search functionality. The first sentence explicitly defines it as returning logs matching a log search query, which is distinct from other log-related tools like GetLogsArchive or ListLogsArchives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to search and filter logs) and when not to use it (for archiving logs, directing users to Datadog archive capabilities instead). It clearly states an alternative (archive capabilities) and references documentation, offering comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: data availability constraints (current/previous month only, 72-hour delay), access restrictions (parent-level organizations only), temporal limitations (cannot go beyond two months past), and error conditions (400, 403, 429 responses). It also mentions the response format (JSON with datetime-format=rfc3339). However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or discuss rate limits beyond the 429 error, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads useful information but then duplicates the entire parameter documentation from the schema, followed by extensive HTTP response details that belong in an output schema. The 'Query Parameters' and 'Responses' sections are redundant given the structured fields, making the description unnecessarily long (over 500 words) with significant waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, and parameter documentation. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, the redundancy with structured fields and inclusion of HTTP response details that should be in the output schema slightly reduces completeness, though the core information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim in the 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't compensate with extra insights like usage patterns or constraints not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 estimated cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the exact resource (estimated cost) and scope (multi-org/single root-org accounts), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the alternative '/historical_cost' endpoint for historical data, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'GetHistoricalCostByOrg' and 'GetCostByOrg'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it states that estimated cost data is only available for the current and previous month with up to 72-hour delay, and directs users to use '/historical_cost' for prior historical costs. It also specifies access restrictions (parent-level organizations only) and temporal constraints (cannot go beyond two months in the past), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), includes authentication requirements (403 response for unauthorized users), rate limiting (429 response), and error handling (400 for bad requests). The deprecation warning adds important context about the tool's lifecycle status. It doesn't fully detail response formats beyond examples, but covers key operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that belong in an output schema rather than the description. The core purpose and deprecation note are buried among technical response documentation. While not redundant, it's inefficiently organized with too much low-value information for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read operation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, deprecation status, parameters, and behavioral aspects like authentication and rate limits. With an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the detailed response documentation in the description is unnecessary but doesn't harm completeness. The main gap is structural organization, not content missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (start_hr and end_hr) fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter information verbatim without adding any additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 hourly usage for Lambda traced invocations.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('hourly usage for Lambda traced invocations'), and scope (hourly data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetHourlyUsage' (general) or other usage tools, providing specific focus on Lambda traced invocations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance: it notes that this endpoint is deprecated and directs users to an alternative API ('Get hourly usage by product family API') for current usage. This tells the agent when not to use this tool (for new implementations) and what to use instead, which is crucial for avoiding deprecated functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![datadog-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![datadog-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/brukhabtu/datadog-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server