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 mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which is useful context about authorization requirements. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the RDP config content is in, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves 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 concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, describing the parameter, and specifying the return format. It's well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter constraint more naturally rather than as a parenthetical.

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 there's an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond the high-level 'Dictionary of VM names to RDP config content'. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter documentation, the description provides minimal context about the tool's behavior, permissions, or error handling. It's adequate but leaves clear gaps for a tool that retrieves configuration data.

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 meaningful context about the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. This clarifies that the parameter is optional (matching the schema's default: null) and specifies an authorization requirement not evident from the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the single parameter, though it doesn't explain what happens when user_id is omitted.

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 RDP configuration files for the range.' It specifies the resource (RDP configuration files) and the scope (for the range). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range_sshconfig' that also retrieve configuration data, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve configuration data (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'get_range_sshconfig'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's appropriate. The mention of 'admin only' for 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.