list_service_definitions

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 'List all' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large datasets. The description adds basic context about what service definitions are, but lacks operational guidance.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all service definitions from Datadog') followed by explanatory context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

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

Given 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a list operation but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover output format details (e.g., what 'table' vs 'json' returns), error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how pagination works or format differences). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List all') and resource ('service definitions from Datadog'), and explains what service definitions are ('describe the structure, ownership, and metadata of services in your organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_service_definition' (singular) by emphasizing 'all' and listing rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 retrieving service definitions broadly, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_definition' (for a specific service) or other list tools (e.g., 'list_monitors'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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