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 mentions cloning but fails to explain critical details like whether this operation is destructive, requires admin rights, affects the original range, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns, making it efficient. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, and some sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., repeating 'clone').

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 of cloning a range with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are crucial for a mutation tool like this.

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%, but the description adds some value by explaining parameters: 'target_user_id' as the destination user, 'include_snapshots' as a boolean for including snapshots, and 'user_id' as optional and admin-only. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving details like format or constraints unclear.

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 action ('Clone') and resource ('current range to another user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'clone_range' (if duplicates exist), which prevents 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_range'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a range must be active or if the user has permissions, leaving usage unclear.

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