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. While it mentions 'admin only' for user_id (implying permission requirements), it doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects: whether operations are reversible, destructive implications of 'delete', rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what constitutes 'bulk operation results'. For a tool with potentially destructive operations and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Bulk operation results') and could be more specific. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though some parameter explanations could be more informative.

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's complexity (4 parameters, potentially destructive operations, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description lacks critical context: permission requirements beyond 'admin only', destructive implications, error handling, and detailed parameter semantics. For a bulk operations tool with significant potential impact, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 provides basic semantic information for all 4 parameters: operation types, vm_names default behavior, parameters as operation-specific, and user_id as admin-only. However, it lacks crucial details: valid operation values beyond the examples, format for vm_names, structure of parameters object, or user_id format/requirements. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete schema coverage gap.

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 performs 'bulk operations on multiple VMs' and lists specific operations (power_on, power_off, snapshot, delete), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_power_off_hosts' or 'batch_snapshot_hosts', which appear to handle similar operations in a batch context.

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 the batch_* sibling tools. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is parameter-specific rather than overall usage guidance. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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