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 states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) and mentions 'admin only' for user_id, hinting at permission needs. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites existing templates), error conditions, or response format beyond 'Template addition result', leaving significant gaps.

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 (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Optional' is stated in both the description and schema), but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Template name', 'Optional user ID (admin only)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify expected formats (e.g., URL validation, user ID syntax) or constraints, leaving room for improvement.

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 ('Add a new template') and resource ('to the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_template' or 'build_template', which appear to serve similar template-related functions, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'create_custom_template' or 'build_template' from the sibling list. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't explicitly state when or why to choose this tool over others.

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