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 the tool returns 'Network topology data' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., format, structure, or visualization specifics). It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, hinting at permission requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, with every sentence serving a purpose. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into the flow, slightly affecting readability.

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 potential complexity (network topology data), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It specifies the purpose and mentions an output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but not fully informative for an AI agent.

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: Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides context beyond the schema's basic type and nullability. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this addition is modest. It doesn't fully explain the parameter's role or implications, so it meets the baseline for a tool with low parameter count but doesn't excel.

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 network topology visualization data.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network topology visualization data'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'visualize_range' or 'diagnose_network_issues', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to networks, ranges, and diagnostics, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only hint is in the parameter description ('admin only'), but this isn't integrated into usage advice.

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