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 'Wazuh configuration and status', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, but overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling, making it only adequate for minimal 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', providing some context beyond the schema's type and default. However, with one parameter, it doesn't fully explain its purpose, format, or impact, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 Wazuh SIEM information for the range.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Wazuh SIEM information'), and scope ('for the range'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_alerts', which prevents 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 mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at permissions, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_siem_info' or 'get_siem_alerts', nor does it provide context on prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit guidance limits its helpfulness.

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