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 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, structure). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity, as it leaves key operational aspects unspecified.

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, followed by structured sections for args, returns, and an example. Each sentence earns its place, but the example is somewhat redundant as it restates the parameter usage without adding new insights, 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 complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., range management operations) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed range information' includes, potential errors, or how it differs from other range-related tools. This leaves too many gaps for effective agent use in a rich context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'user_id' is the 'User ID whose range to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints or examples beyond the basic example, leaving some ambiguity. With 1 parameter, this is a minimal but acceptable baseline.

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 detailed information about a specific user's range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('range'), and scope ('by user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range' or 'get_range_config', which might retrieve range information differently, so it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for a specific user's active range or any range associated with the user. With many sibling tools like 'get_range' and 'get_range_config', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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