Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves logs (implying a read operation) but lacks details on permissions beyond the admin note, potential rate limits, response format, pagination, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely accesses sensitive build data.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema, slightly reducing 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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but more context on usage, permissions, and parameter details would improve completeness. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.

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 'template_id' as 'Template ID' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding basic meaning. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., UUID), sourcing, or the implications of omitting 'user_id', leaving gaps. The baseline is 3 due to some value added over the bare schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('template build logs'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_range_logs' or 'get_template_status' that might also retrieve logs or status information, preventing 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 usage guidance. It notes that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which is helpful, but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_range_logs' or 'get_template_status' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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