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 hints at permission requirements, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what 'configuration' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence adds value. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' formatting could be more integrated into natural language, slightly affecting readability.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return format specifics, and how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide an AI agent, but it falls short.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some value by explaining 'template_id' as 'Range template ID' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', giving basic semantics. However, it doesn't clarify format, constraints, or examples for these parameters, which limits its helpfulness. Given the low schema coverage, this is a baseline score with partial compensation.

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 a specific range template configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('range template configuration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template_status' or 'list_range_templates', which is why it doesn't achieve 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 usage guidance. It notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which is helpful, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_template_status' or 'list_range_templates'. There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for invoking this tool.

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