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 a creation tool ('Build a completely custom range configuration'), which implies it's a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or what 'ready for deployment' entails. The example adds some context about the output format, but key behavioral aspects like whether this creates persistent resources or requires follow-up deployment are 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 a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value description, and a comprehensive example. While somewhat lengthy due to the detailed example, every section adds value. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose and parameters explained before the example.

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 (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job of explaining the tool. It covers purpose, parameters, and provides a detailed example. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about what happens after configuration creation (deployment implications, resource allocation, etc.), but for a configuration-building tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains what each parameter means: 'vms: List of VM configurations (each with vm_name, hostname, template, vlan, ip_last_octet, ram_gb, cpus)', 'network_rules: Optional list of network rules', 'inter_vlan_default: Default inter-VLAN policy', 'include_siem: Whether to automatically add a SIEM server', and 'siem_type: SIEM type if include_siem is True'. The example further illustrates the structure and usage.

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 completely custom range configuration from scratch' with 'full control over every VM and network rule, not based on any existing scenario.' It specifically distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description', 'build_range_from_prompt', and 'build_range_from_skeleton' which appear to build from existing configurations or templates.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need 'full control over every VM and network rule' and don't want to base it on 'any existing scenario.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the distinction from other 'build_range_from_*' tools is implied.

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