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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by specifying the method ('Uses the ludus CLI with --url') and constraints ('No SSH required'), which are not evident from the input schema alone. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage notes, parameter details, return information, and examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, with examples. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return dictionary structure, but the provided information is sufficient for basic use.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'role_name' in the 'Args' section and provides examples with both Galaxy and directory-based roles, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively covers the parameter semantics, though it could include more on format or validation rules.

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 a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific role'), including what information is retrieved ('installation method and requirements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_role_installed' (which likely checks installation status) and 'list_installed_roles' (which lists roles), making the scope explicit.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning 'Uses the ludus CLI with --url when available for reliable remote access' and 'No SSH required for checking role information,' which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_role_installed' or 'list_installed_roles,' for different needs.

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