Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a playbook and returns information, but lacks details on permissions (beyond 'admin only' for one parameter), side effects, error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about critical behaviors like mutation impact or authentication needs.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It avoids redundancy and uses clear, concise language. However, the parameter explanations are very brief, and the 'Returns' section could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 (6 parameters, creation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but without annotations, more guidance on mutations and permissions is warranted. It meets minimum viability 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?

The description lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Scenario identifier', 'Playbook title'), which adds meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide deeper semantics like format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters. With low schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score of 3, as it covers basics but leaves gaps.

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: 'Create a scenario playbook for training.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('scenario playbook'), and the context ('for training') helps distinguish it from general creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario', which prevents a score of 5.

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 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter-level detail, not a usage guideline. There is no indication of prerequisites, when to choose this over similar tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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