datadog_auth_status

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns boolean presence flags, never includes secrets, and is read-only. This is thorough and accurate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, what is returned, and safety note. No redundant text. Perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output format (boolean flags, non-secret site verbatim, YAML). The tool has no parameters, so no gaps. Complete for a status-check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it reports which credential scopes have credentials configured, and highlights what is returned (boolean flags) and what is never included (secrets). This distinguishes it from other Datadog tools that deal with dashboards, monitors, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking credential configuration status, and notes it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though no alternative auth tools exist in sibling list.

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