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 effectively describes key traits: the confirmation requirement ('requires confirmation', 'Must be set to True'), safety preview ('Shows preview of what will be deleted'), and irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'). It also implies destructive behavior through 'Delete' and 'cleaning up'. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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. Each section (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The text is dense with useful details, and there is no wasted verbiage.

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 (destructive operation with safety measures), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job. It covers purpose, parameters, safety, and usage context. However, it lacks details on return values beyond 'Deletion results for matching ranges' (e.g., format, error cases) and does not mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions, leaving some 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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'status_filter' is explained with examples ('ERROR', 'FAILED', 'DEPLOYING') and context ('Status to filter by'), and 'confirm' is described with its safety role and requirement ('Must be set to True to actually delete'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ranges matching a specific status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_range' (which likely deletes a single range) and 'cleanup_old_ranges' (which may use different criteria). It specifies the exact scope: all ranges filtered by status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for cleaning up failed deployments or test ranges'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., 'delete_range' for single ranges, 'cleanup_old_ranges' for time-based cleanup). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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