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 mentions 'admin only' for user_id, which hints at permission requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'range' means. The return format is stated but without behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'range' term is vague and could be clarified.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description adds value by documenting parameters and return type. However, it lacks context on 'range', error cases, or behavioral traits, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 explains all three parameters (user_id, severity, limit) with basic semantics like 'Optional user ID (admin only)' and severity enum values. However, it doesn't clarify 'range' or provide examples, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'SIEM alerts', specifying it's for a 'range'. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_agents' that might exist in the same domain, though those aren't in the provided sibling list.

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. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id but doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or compare it to other alert-related tools (none in siblings).

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