list_downtimes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no default scope, no pagination or result-size hints, no mention of time-range behavior for 'scheduled' downtimes, and no indication that it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'List'.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still omits the default result scope, the meaning of currentOnly, and any sense of return shape. It is not adequate to call the tool confidently.

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

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

The single optional parameter currentOnly has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. Whether it means 'only currently active' or 'only not-yet-started' is left entirely ambiguous, which is a real risk for a filter flag.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (scheduled downtimes) plus the source system Datadog, so the agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings schedule_downtime and cancel_downtime. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 on when to use this versus schedule_downtime, cancel_downtime, or list_incidents. Nothing indicates whether it returns active, upcoming, or historical downtimes, which is the key selection question for a downtime-listing tool.

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