Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves the current configuration, prepares it for download in YAML format, and includes details like optional admin-only functionality for 'user_id' and default filename. It also mentions the return format ('YAML content') and provides an example, though it lacks explicit information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, example, use cases) and front-loaded key information. However, the 'Use Cases' section is somewhat verbose with five bullet points, some of which overlap (e.g., 'modify and redeploy' and 'make variations'), slightly reducing conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, examples, and use cases. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, or response structure beyond YAML content, which could enhance completeness for a download-focused tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'user_id' is described as 'Optional user ID (admin only - for getting other users' configs)' and 'filename' as 'Optional filename to save to (defaults to /tmp/current-range-config.yml)'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail parameter constraints or validation rules.

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: 'retrieves your currently deployed range configuration from Ludus and provides it in YAML format for download.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('range configuration'), and output format ('YAML format for download'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml' by emphasizing the download-ready aspect.

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 clear context for when to use the tool through the 'Use Cases' section, listing scenarios like backup, modification, sharing, version control, and cloning. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'export_range_config_to_yaml'), which prevents a score of 5.

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