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. It states the tool returns a list of dependencies but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the dependencies are returned in. The mention that user_id is 'admin only' is helpful but minimal given the lack of annotations.

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: a brief purpose statement followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with headings makes it easy to parse.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this might be sufficient, but it could benefit from more operational details.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: template_id is required and identifies the template, and user_id is optional with an 'admin only' constraint. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the format or validation rules for these IDs.

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 template dependencies' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('template dependencies'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on ranges, scenarios, or other resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get_*' tools like 'get_template_status' or 'get_template_logs'.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_template_status' or 'list_templates'. The only implicit guidance is that it requires a template_id, but no explicit usage scenarios are provided.

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