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 states the tool 'Check compliance' and mentions 'admin only' for user_id, implying it may require specific permissions, but does not detail authentication needs, rate limits, or what the check entails (e.g., scope, duration, or impact). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its behavioral traits.

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, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured efficiently, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be more concise by integrating the parameter details into a single flowing sentence, but overall, it is clear and well-organized.

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 (a compliance check tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the parameters and return value ('Compliance check results'), and the output schema likely covers return details, reducing the burden. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or process, making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'framework' is for 'Security framework to check against' with examples (nist, pci, iso27001), and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. However, with two parameters and low schema coverage, this only partially compensates, as it does not fully clarify the semantics or constraints of the parameters beyond basic hints.

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: 'Check compliance against security framework.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('compliance'), and the title 'compliance_check' aligns with this. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which include various security and audit-related tools like 'security_audit' and 'get_vulnerability_scan', so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a prerequisite but does not clarify the context or exclusions. With numerous sibling tools like 'security_audit' and 'get_vulnerability_scan', there is no indication of when this specific compliance check is appropriate, leaving usage ambiguous.

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