Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Abort' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed (beyond hinting 'admin only' for user_id), side effects on the template or system, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns, making it efficient and easy to scan. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Abort result'), and the overall content could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without external knowledge.

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 schema provides no param details. The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameters and notes 'admin only' for user_id, but does not explain what a template ID is, format expectations, or the effect of providing user_id. This partially compensates but leaves key details undocumented, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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 action ('Abort') and target ('a template build'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'abort_and_remove_range' or 'abort_range_deployment', which might handle different resources or scopes, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other abort-related tools or general template management tools like 'delete_template'. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invocation, making usage context unclear.

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