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 states the tool creates a template, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions beyond 'admin only' hints, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a clear opening sentence followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

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 (5 parameters, write operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and mentions an output, but since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and deeper parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Name for the container template', 'Base OS'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details on format constraints (e.g., valid OS values, container configuration structure), leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Create') and resource ('container-based template'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_container_based_template' or 'create_custom_template', which appear to serve similar purposes in the same domain.

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 'build_container_based_template' or 'create_custom_template' from the sibling list. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at a prerequisite, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to other tools.

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