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 that 'force' rebuilds even if the template exists and 'user_id' is admin-only, which adds some context about permissions and idempotency. However, it doesn't describe what 'build' entails (e.g., whether it's a long-running process, if it modifies existing resources, or what happens on failure), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the initial sentence 'Build a template' is redundant and could be omitted without losing information, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 that there's an output schema (handling return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details for a mutation tool (e.g., side effects, error handling). It's sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'template_id' identifies the template to build, 'force' controls rebuild behavior, and 'user_id' specifies optional admin context. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., what a valid template_id looks like).

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 states 'Build a template' which is a tautology that restates the tool name 'build_template'. It doesn't specify what 'build' means in this context (e.g., compiling, deploying, or creating a template instance) or what resource is being built. While it mentions 'template' as the resource, it lacks a specific verb that distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_template', 'apply_template', or 'build_range_from_template'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate to use 'force', or how it differs from sibling tools like 'build_container_based_template' or 'build_range_from_template'. The only implied usage is from the parameter descriptions, but there's no explicit context for tool selection.

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