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 'create' implying a write operation but does not cover permissions (e.g., 'admin only' is noted for user_id but not overall), side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-point list for parameters and returns, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the 'Returns' section is redundant given the output schema.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but overall completeness is moderate with notable 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?

The description lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies optional vs. required parameters and notes admin restrictions for user_id, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('custom template from scratch'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_os_template' or 'create_container_template', which likely have overlapping or related functionality, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as other template-creation siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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