Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't specify what permissions are needed for the tool itself. It doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, whether this is a read-only operation, or what happens when user_id is omitted. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining the parameter, and describing the return. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. While efficient, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated into natural language.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values) and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic operation and provides some parameter context, but for a tool that likely interacts with security infrastructure (SIEM), more behavioral context would be helpful - especially since no annotations exist to provide safety or permission information.

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 adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which provides permission context not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate - it doesn't explain what format the user_id should be in, what 'admin only' means precisely, or how the tool behaves differently with versus without this parameter. The baseline would be lower without the permission hint.

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 states 'Get SIEM information for the range' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what specific SIEM information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling SIEM tools like 'get_siem_agents' or 'get_siem_alerts' that likely retrieve different aspects of SIEM data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. While it mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, this doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and other SIEM-related tools like 'get_siem_agents' or 'get_siem_alerts'. There's no context about what situations call for this particular SIEM information retrieval.

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