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 mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it generates side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For an export tool with no 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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose more seamlessly with the parameter details, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, making it minimally viable but 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 includes an 'Args' section that lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies optional vs. required parameters, defaults, and constraints like 'admin only' for user_id. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics for each parameter (e.g., valid scenario_key formats, what 'include_solutions' entails), so it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate 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 tool's purpose: 'Export lab guide for training purposes.' It specifies the verb ('Export') and resource ('lab guide'), and the context ('for training purposes') provides useful differentiation from other export tools like 'export_metrics' or 'export_range_backup'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from potential sibling tools with similar export functions, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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. With many sibling tools available (like 'generate_range_documentation', 'get_scenario_yaml', or 'export_range_config_to_yaml'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

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