Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'generates' documentation, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, requires admin permissions (hinted by 'admin only' for user_id), or has side effects like creating files. It lacks details on rate limits, output format, or error handling, making it insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant since the schema covers this, but they enhance readability without excessive verbosity.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and doesn't explain the output beyond a high-level summary. The output schema should handle return values, but overall completeness is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'scenario_key' defaults to the current deployment and 'user_id' is 'admin only', which clarifies usage beyond the schema. However, it doesn't define what a 'scenario_key' or 'user_id' entails (e.g., format, examples), leaving gaps. With 2 parameters and partial compensation, a baseline 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: 'Generate attack path documentation for a scenario.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('attack path documentation'), making it distinct from most siblings (e.g., 'generate_range_documentation' is similar but for ranges, not attack paths). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_lab_guide' or 'get_detection_summary', which could be related, so it's not a perfect 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 optional parameters with defaults but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_range_documentation' or 'export_lab_guide'. No context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an active scenario) or exclusions is given, leaving the agent with little direction.

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