Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does: checks deployment logs for ADWS errors, waits for ADWS initialization (5-15 minutes typical), retries failed tasks if auto_retry=True, and provides status updates. It mentions time ranges and default behaviors, though it doesn't cover error handling or permission requirements beyond the user_id parameter note.

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 (overview, bullet points, 'When to use', 'What this does', Args, Returns, Example). It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex behavior. Minor redundancy exists between the bullet points and 'What this does' section, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (recovery operations with waiting and retry logic), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and includes an example. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: wait_minutes (minutes to wait, default 10, max 30), auto_retry (automatically retry failed tasks after wait, default True), and user_id (optional user ID, admin only). The description adds crucial context beyond the bare schema, including defaults, constraints, and usage implications.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Handle Active Directory Web Services (ADWS) recovery for stuck deployments.' It specifies the exact problem domain (ADWS errors during Active Directory deployments) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on recovery operations rather than deployment, configuration, or monitoring tasks listed among siblings.

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 dedicated 'When to use:' section with three specific scenarios: deployment failed with ADWS error messages, deployment stuck on OU configuration tasks, and DC VM deployed but AD services not fully started. This provides clear, actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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