Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto_deploy' and 'admin only' for user_id, adding some context about deployment automation and permissions. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what 'range configuration' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output specifics beyond a brief mention of 'Generated configuration and deployment result'. For a tool that likely involves configuration building and potential deployment, more context on outcomes and limitations 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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'prompt' is a 'natural language description of desired range', 'auto_deploy' controls 'Automatically deploy after building configuration', and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This clarifies the purpose and constraints of each parameter, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format or examples for the prompt.

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: 'Build a range configuration from a natural language prompt.' It specifies the verb ('Build') and resource ('range configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'build_range_from_description' or 'build_range_from_scratch' by emphasizing natural language input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_config_from_description' or 'explain_range_design_decisions', which might have overlapping purposes, keeping it from 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 by mentioning 'natural language prompt' and 'auto_deploy', suggesting it's for automated configuration generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_range_from_description' or 'generate_config_from_description', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., admin rights for user_id). This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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