Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a file export operation with download capability, specifies default behavior (filename defaults to /tmp/ludus-range-config.yml, include_full_content defaults to True), and describes the return structure (file path, YAML content, download instructions). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement first, followed by clear parameter explanations, return description, and practical example. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex functionality.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, parameters, and return expectations. The example adds practical clarity. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case information, but overall it's highly complete given the complexity.

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, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'config' (range configuration dictionary), 'filename' (optional with default), and 'include_full_content' (boolean with default). The example further clarifies usage. The only gap is lack of detail about the 'config' dictionary structure, but the description provides meaningful context 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 specific action ('export'), resource ('range configuration'), and output format ('to a YAML file for download'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_range_backup' or 'export_metrics' by specifying the exact resource type (range configuration) and format (YAML).

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 implies usage context (exporting configurations for use with Ludus) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_config' or 'share_range_config'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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