Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'restore' which implies mutation/destructive action, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing ranges, requires specific permissions beyond 'admin only' for user_id, has side effects on running VMs, or involves rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema exists.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context for a potentially destructive tool. The output schema reduces burden, but critical mutation details and usage prerequisites are missing.

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 compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 4 parameters (backup_file path, restore_vms for VM disks, restore_config for configuration, user_id with admin restriction). However, these are basic semantic labels without details on formats, constraints, or interactions (e.g., what happens if restore_vms=false). The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 with specific verbs ('import and restore') and identifies the resource ('range from backup'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_range_backup' by indicating the opposite direction of operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other import/restore tools like 'import_community_scenario' beyond the 'range' focus.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backup file from 'export_range_backup'), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The only implicit usage hint is the 'admin only' note for 'user_id', but this is parameter-specific rather than tool-level guidance.

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