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. It discloses that the tool installs roles on the Ludus server and includes examples, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds some context (e.g., common roles for Ludus) but does not fully cover behavioral traits like installation paths or confirmation prompts.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, but includes extensive examples and a list of common roles that may be verbose. While informative, some content (like the full list of common roles) could be trimmed for conciseness, as not every sentence adds critical value for tool invocation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters and providing examples. However, it lacks details on return values (only mentions 'Installation result with status' vaguely) and does not cover error cases or installation behavior fully, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 thoroughly explains both parameters: 'role_name' as 'Role name in Galaxy format' with examples, and 'version' as 'Optional version to install' with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting parameter usage and format.

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: 'Install an Ansible role directly from Ansible Galaxy.' It specifies the exact action (install) and resource (Ansible role from Galaxy), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'install_role' or 'install_role_from_url' by emphasizing the Galaxy source and simplicity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'This is the simplest way to install roles' from Ansible Galaxy. It implies usage for Galaxy-sourced roles but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'install_role_from_url' for non-Galaxy sources, though the context is helpful.

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