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 states the tool 'Get[s] scenario configuration as YAML' and mentions returns, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for the main purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate yet could be more informative for effective tool 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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('scenario_key', 'siem_type') and a 'Returns' section, adding some meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details on parameter semantics. The description compensates slightly by naming parameters and indicating a default for 'siem_type', but it lacks explanations of what these parameters represent or their expected formats, leaving room for improvement.

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 scenario configuration as YAML.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('scenario configuration'), and format ('YAML'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scenario_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 siblings like 'get_scenario_config' and 'export_range_config_to_yaml', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context, prerequisites, or use cases. The absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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