Ludus FastMCP

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 the tool's behavior as a two-step process (abort then remove), mentions it's a convenience function, and implies destructive action through the confirm parameter. However, it doesn't specify permissions (e.g., admin vs. user), rate limits, or error handling, 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.

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by context about it being a convenience function, a code-like breakdown of equivalent commands, parameter explanations, return value, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the information is organized logically for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and provides an example. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what the 'combined abort and deletion results' output entails, which could be important for a destructive 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: 'confirm: Confirmation flag (must be True to proceed)' and 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only).' This adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema's type information, explaining the confirm requirement and admin restriction for user_id. However, it doesn't specify format for user_id or provide examples of valid values.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Abort any active deployment and then remove the range.' It uses specific verbs ('abort', 'remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('range'). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the two sibling tools it combines: abort_range_deployment() and delete_range().

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as a 'convenience function that combines abort_range_deployment() and delete_range().' It clearly indicates this is an alternative to running those two tools separately, and the example shows usage for 'current user's range.' It also mentions the confirm parameter requirement, which implies a safety mechanism.

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