Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a 'List of SIEM agents,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. The 'admin only' note adds some context, but overall transparency is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter briefly, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks details on usage context or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only),' which clarifies its optional nature and admin restriction. However, with 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, this partial info is better than nothing but doesn't fully cover parameter semantics.

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 SIEM agents for the range.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SIEM agents'), and indicates scope ('for the range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_alerts' or 'get_siem_info', which prevents 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 guidance: it mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only,' which hints at permission requirements. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_siem_info'), or prerequisites for invoking the tool effectively.

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