Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' SSH config, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'SSH config content' entails. The admin-only note for user_id adds some context about permissions, but overall behavioral traits are minimally described.

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, documenting the parameter, and describing the return value. The structure is clear with labeled sections for Args and Returns, though the formatting could be more integrated 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 the tool's simple nature (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, or typical use cases to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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)' clarifies that this parameter is optional and restricted to admin users. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this additional semantic information compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't explain format or constraints beyond the admin restriction.

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 SSH config for the range' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on a specific resource (SSH config). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'get_range_rdpconfigs' that likely retrieve other configuration types, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint rather than usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to similar sibling tools.

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