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. It mentions that 'include_credentials' can include credentials in documentation, which hints at security implications, but doesn't disclose other critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions beyond admin for user_id, rate limits, or what happens if the range doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns' could be more specific. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter notes into the main description.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool that generates documentation potentially with security implications, more guidance on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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 description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all four parameters: 'format' specifies documentation formats, 'include_network_diagram' and 'include_credentials' control content inclusion, and 'user_id' indicates it's optional and admin-only. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format specifics or credential handling.

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 the tool 'Generate[s] comprehensive documentation for the range,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'export_lab_guide' or 'get_attack_path_documentation,' leaving ambiguity about what specific type of documentation this generates versus alternatives.

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_lab_guide' and 'get_attack_path_documentation,' there's no indication of whether this is for general range documentation, specific scenarios, or other contexts. The mention that 'user_id' is 'admin only' is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.

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