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 states the tool retrieves 'range information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), what permissions are needed beyond 'admin only' for the parameter, rate limits, or what the return format entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with a clear main sentence followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each part earns its place without unnecessary details. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage for inputs, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it lacks differentiation from alternatives, detailed behavioral context, and full parameter semantics. It's minimally adequate but has 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?

The description adds meaning by explaining that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies its optional nature and admin restriction. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by detailing what 'range information' includes or how the parameter affects the output. It adds some value but not enough to elevate the score significantly.

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 current user's range information' which clearly indicates it retrieves data about a user's range. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_range_by_user', 'get_range_config', or 'get_range_metrics' that might retrieve similar or overlapping information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 the 'user_id' parameter is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which hints at usage for admins. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_by_user' or 'get_range_config', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is incomplete and lacks explicit alternatives.

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