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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the status information takes. The admin-only note for user_id is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The three-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the natural language flow rather than appearing as documentation headers.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (one optional with admin restrictions), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic parameter documentation but lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, or how this tool differs from similar status-checking siblings.

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 documents both parameters (template_id and user_id) and provides crucial context that user_id is 'admin only', which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain what a Template ID looks like, where to find it, or what specific admin permissions are required for user_id.

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 status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'get_template_logs' that might also provide status-related information about templates or deployments.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status', 'get_template_logs', and 'quick_status', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's status retrieval from others or when it's the appropriate choice.

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