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 mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', hinting at permission requirements, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, data format of results, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the front-loaded purpose statement could be more specific to improve clarity without adding length.

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 is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description provides a basic purpose and some parameter hints. However, for a tool with potential security implications (admin-only access), it lacks details on permissions, result structure, and interaction with sibling tools, making it adequate but incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which gives some semantic meaning (optional, admin-restricted) but does not explain what 'range' refers to, the format of 'user_id', or any other context. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description compensates minimally, falling short of fully clarifying parameter usage.

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 the tool 'Get vulnerability scan results for the range', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('vulnerability scan results'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_range_metrics' or 'get_detection_summary', leaving the specific scope of 'vulnerability scan' somewhat vague without further context about what distinguishes it from other retrieval tools.

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 includes a note that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which offers some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'get_detection_summary' or other security-related tools). There is no guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, making it minimal but not comprehensive.

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