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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'common container' means. The description lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 brief and structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the content is overly sparse—the single sentence 'Get configuration for a common container' is under-specified, and the additional lines don't add meaningful detail. It's concise but borders on under-informative.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and a vague purpose, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's context and usage. It meets a bare minimum but lacks depth for effective agent use.

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 minimal semantics by naming 'container_name' and stating it's for a 'common container', but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid container name or provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient for full understanding.

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 'Get configuration for a common container', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_common_container_configs' or 'get_range_config'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools that also retrieve configurations (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_scenario_config'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool.

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