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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs health checks on 'all VMs in the range', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'health checks' entail (e.g., performance metrics, connectivity tests), whether it's resource-intensive, or if there are rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for 'user_id' adds some context about permissions, but overall, the behavioral traits are vague for a tool with potential operational impact.

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: the first defines the tool's action, and the others clarify parameter and output semantics. There's no unnecessary verbiage, making it efficient to parse, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of health checks on VMs, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the scope ('all VMs in the range') and hints at permissions ('admin only'), but lacks details on what health checks include, potential side effects, or error handling. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more operational context to fully guide an agent, especially with no annotations to cover behavioral aspects.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics. It notes that 'user_id' is 'Optional' and 'admin only', which provides context beyond the schema's basic type and default. However, with 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining what 'user_id' is used for (e.g., filtering results, audit logging) or how it interacts with the health check process. This meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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: 'Run health checks on all VMs in the range.' This specifies the verb ('Run health checks') and resource ('all VMs in the range'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_status' or 'batch_get_vm_status' that might provide similar 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 mentions that the 'user_id' parameter is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quick_status' or 'batch_get_vm_status'. There's no explicit context for when this tool is preferred or what prerequisites might be needed beyond admin access.

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