Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'check') and describes the return format ('Dictionary with required roles and their installation status'). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The example helps but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidance, documents parameters and return value, and includes a practical example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The example is integrated naturally into the workflow explanation.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters, return format, and usage context. The example provides concrete implementation guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error conditions or what happens with invalid scenario keys. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it's quite comprehensive but not perfect.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'scenario_key' is explained as 'Scenario identifier' with an example, and 'siem_type' is explained as 'SIEM type if scenario uses SIEM' with enumerated values. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the default value behavior for 'siem_type'.

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 with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of required Ansible roles for a specific scenario'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ensure_scenario_roles' by focusing on checking rather than installing roles, and from 'check_role_installed' by being scenario-specific rather than role-specific.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to check which roles are needed before deploying a scenario') and provides a clear alternative ('Then use `ensure_scenario_roles()` to automatically install missing roles'). It establishes a workflow sequence, making the usage context unambiguous.

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