Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that user_id is 'admin only' which provides some permission context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation or creates side effects, whether it's destructive, what the backup format is, whether it triggers asynchronous processing, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves most behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence 'Export range backup' is under-specified rather than wasteful. The parameter explanations are efficient, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative. Overall structure is good with minimal redundancy.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a backup export operation with potential complexity (VM images, configuration, admin requirements), the description should provide more context about what the operation entails, prerequisites, and implications.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantic context for all three parameters: what include_vms and include_config control, and that user_id is optional and admin-only. However, it doesn't explain the implications of these choices (e.g., what happens if include_vms=false, what 'configuration' encompasses, or why admin privileges are needed for user_id). The description compensates partially but not fully for the schema coverage gap.

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 states 'Export range backup' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While 'Export' is a verb and 'range backup' is a resource, it lacks specificity about what 'range backup' entails or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_range_config_to_yaml' or 'import_range_backup'. The description doesn't clarify if this exports a full system backup, configuration only, or something else beyond what the name implies.

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 siblings like 'export_range_config_to_yaml' and 'import_range_backup', there's no indication of when this backup export is appropriate versus other export methods. The parameter descriptions mention 'admin only' for user_id, but this doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.

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