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 action 'Import' but does not clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' hints, or any side effects like overwriting existing scenarios. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow, and the Returns section is vague ('Import result with scenario information'), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks critical context. It does not address behavioral risks, usage scenarios, or detailed parameter guidance, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool in a complex environment.

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 descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameters and notes that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which clarifies its optionality and access restriction. However, it does not explain the format or expected content of scenario_url (e.g., URL structure, supported repositories), leaving key parameter details undocumented, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'Import' and the resource 'scenario from the community repository', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_range_backup' or 'clone_and_modify_scenario', which might involve similar import or cloning operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter constraint, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other import or scenario-related tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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