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 does an excellent job describing deployment behaviors: supporting both full deployments and resuming partial deployments, explaining how to use tags and limit filters, mentioning that it can resume after pause/abort, and providing common Ansible tags. However, it doesn't explicitly mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, though 'deploy' implies mutation.

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 clear sections (full deployment, resume, common tags, args, returns, use cases, workflow) but is quite lengthy. While every section adds value, it could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important guidance first, and the structure helps navigation despite the length.

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 of a deployment tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral context, use cases, and workflow examples. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on how to use the tool rather than what it returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information. It explains each parameter's purpose: config (required for full deployment), tags (comma-separated Ansible tags), limit (VM matching pattern), only_roles (limit user-defined roles), force (force deployment if testing enabled), and user_id (admin only). It provides examples, formatting guidance, and usage context that goes far 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: deploying a range from configuration with optional filters for resuming. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (deploy_scenario, smart_deploy) and specifying this is for custom configurations, not predefined scenarios. The verb 'deploy' is specific and the resource 'range' is clearly identified.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating 'IMPORTANT: For deploying predefined scenarios... use deploy_scenario() or smart_deploy() instead.' It also clearly defines three specific use cases for this tool and provides detailed examples of when to use different parameter combinations for full vs. resume deployments.

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