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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about fallback mechanisms (CLI vs. HTTP API) and reliability aspects, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is informative but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by implementation details, return format, and an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it operates, and what it returns with an example. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., what fields are in 'details'), but the example provides adequate guidance for this low-complexity 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters are present, and the description does not attempt to explain non-existent parameters.

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 specific action ('List all installed Ansible roles') and resource ('on the Ludus server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_role_installed' or 'install_role'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by explaining it 'Uses the ludus CLI with --url when available for reliable remote access' and 'Falls back to HTTP API if CLI is not available', offering implementation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'check_role_installed' or 'get_role_info', missing full sibling differentiation.

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