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 retrieves a timeline with progress tracking, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's real-time vs. cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise. It starts with the core purpose, then lists args and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter note into the main description, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool that likely involves sensitive admin operations, more context on permissions, data scope, or integration with siblings would improve completeness. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has 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 adds some parameter context: it notes user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this minimal addition doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but since there is 1 parameter with some description, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get deployment timeline with progress tracking.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment timeline'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_deployment_status' or 'get_deployment_metrics' by focusing on timeline and progress. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools, keeping it at 4 instead 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, resulting in a score of 2.

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