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 states the tool retrieves configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if 'user_id' is omitted. The mention of 'admin only' hints at permissions, but lacks detail on error handling or response format, leaving significant gaps.

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 stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant, as the output schema exists. Every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency without losing clarity.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like permissions or error cases. Without annotations, it should provide more context for safe invocation, making it just sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 some meaning beyond the input schema: it notes 'user_id' is 'Optional' and 'admin only', which clarifies usage constraints not evident from the schema alone. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it doesn't fully explain what 'user_id' represents or how it affects the output. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but the added value is limited.

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 range access configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('range access configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grant_range_access', 'clear_range_access', or 'range_access_logs', which prevents 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 minimal guidance: it notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_by_user' or 'range_access_logs'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.

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