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. It describes the core behavior (cloning and modifying scenarios) and includes an example showing the expected input format. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the scenario_key doesn't exist.

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 purpose statement, usage context, parameter documentation, return value, and a comprehensive example. Every section adds value, though the example is quite lengthy (showing two VM configurations). The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides parameter details, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and doesn't fully describe the return value beyond 'New scenario configuration with modifications.' For a mutation tool with no annotations, more completeness would be expected.

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 for 4 parameters, the description compensates well. It documents all parameters in the Args section with brief explanations, provides an example showing the complex 'modifications' parameter structure, and references another tool for context. The only gap is that 'siem_type' isn't fully explained beyond having a default value in the schema.

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: 'Clone an existing scenario and modify it to create a new custom scenario.' It specifies the verb ('clone and modify'), resource ('scenario'), and provides concrete examples ('ad-basic' with more workstations, 'web-basic' with different applications) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_custom_range_from_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario'.

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: 'This is useful for creating variations of existing scenarios...' and references a sibling tool ('same as create_custom_range_from_scenario'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to all relevant alternatives like 'build_range_from_scenario' or 'update_range_config'.

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