Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in parallel' (a performance trait) and 'admin only' for user_id (an authorization need), which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, error handling, whether it's read-only or mutating, or what 'status' entails (e.g., uptime, health, deployment state). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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 a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('Status for each VM') and could be more specific without adding bulk.

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 complexity (batch operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of status data), error cases, performance implications of 'in parallel', and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('vm_names', 'user_id') with brief notes, adding meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'vm_names' is a list and 'user_id' is optional/admin-only. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., VM name conventions), constraints, or examples, only partially compensating for the low schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Get status of multiple VMs in parallel.' It specifies the verb ('Get status'), resource ('multiple VMs'), and key operational detail ('in parallel'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_status' or 'get_deployment_status' that might also retrieve status information, 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 implies usage context through 'in parallel' and the optional 'user_id' parameter note ('admin only'), suggesting this tool is for batch operations with potential admin restrictions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'quick_status' or other status-checking siblings, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the admin hint.

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