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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it stops an active deployment, allows resumption via deploy_range, and mentions admin-only usage for the user_id parameter. However, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or response format, 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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example Workflow, Note), but includes redundant information. For instance, the 'Equivalent to' line and some note items (e.g., 'Resume deployment') repeat earlier points, slightly reducing efficiency without adding new value.

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 (mutation with admin constraints) and lack of annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more detail on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what 'Abort result' entails) would enhance completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (user_id). The description adds meaningful context by noting 'Optional user ID (admin only)', clarifying its optional nature and restricted usage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't specify format or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Abort a range deployment') and resource ('range deployment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'abort_and_remove_range' which combines aborting with deletion. The verb 'stops' reinforces the action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this before deleting a range that is currently deploying') and provides alternatives for post-abort actions (e.g., delete_range, abort_and_remove_range, deploy_range). It also references sibling tools like 'deploy_range' for resuming, offering clear guidance on tool selection.

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