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 'user_id' is 'admin only', which adds some behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what 'detection summary' entails, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise and structured: it starts with the core purpose, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It includes purpose and some parameter info, but lacks behavioral details and usage context. With the output schema handling returns, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, with only one parameter and low schema coverage, this is a basic addition. It doesn't explain the format or implications of 'user_id' in detail, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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: 'Get detection summary from SIEM' specifies the action (get) and resource (detection summary from SIEM). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info', which are related SIEM tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a prerequisite, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info'. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent with little context for selection.

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