Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and mentions an 'admin only' restriction for the user_id parameter. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: what 'range configuration' actually contains, whether this returns current/live configuration or stored configuration, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 with a clear main statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The three-line structure (purpose, args, returns) is efficient. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more naturally rather than appearing as separate documentation blocks.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation in the description), the main gap is behavioral context. For a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations, the description should explain more about what 'range configuration' encompasses, whether this is a read-only operation, and any access restrictions beyond the admin note. The description is minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.

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 information beyond the schema. It notes that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)' - the 'admin only' constraint is useful semantic context not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description doesn't fully explain what 'range configuration' means or how the user_id parameter affects the results. The baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters, but with 1 parameter that's only partially explained, 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get range configuration' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a specific resource (range configuration). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_range', 'get_range_by_user', or 'get_current_range_config_for_download' - all of which appear to retrieve range-related 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar 'get_range*' tools in the sibling list, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over other range retrieval tools. The admin-only note about user_id is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

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