Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It hints at admin-only access for user_id but doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-sensitive 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 but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though the formatting as a docstring-like block is slightly verbose.

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 and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameter defaults and restrictions but lacks behavioral context like side effects or error cases. The output schema reduces need to describe returns, but overall coverage 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 deployment_id defaults to current and user_id is admin-only, which clarifies optionality and access control. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, leaving gaps for the two parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('metrics for a specific deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'export_metrics', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 guidance: it mentions 'admin only' for user_id but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_metrics' or 'export_metrics'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context is given.

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