get-metrics

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly implies read-only search but misses details like pagination, response format, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from briefly describing the return value (e.g., list of metric names, metadata).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description provides an example ('e.g. system.cpu') which adds practical guidance beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on formatting, wildcards, or query syntax.

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 'Search' and the resource 'Datadog metrics' with the qualifier 'by name pattern'. This effectively distinguishes it from generic 'get-metrics' and from siblings like 'list-active-metrics' or 'query-metrics', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other metric-related tools such as 'list-active-metrics' or 'query-metrics'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations mentioned.

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