Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions an admin-only parameter, but doesn't describe pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'range' means contextually. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter constraint into the main description rather than burying it in the Args section.

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 relative simplicity (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps about operational constraints and doesn't leverage the rich sibling context to guide usage.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter (user_id) with its optional nature and admin restriction. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter format, validation rules, or provide examples, keeping it at baseline adequacy.

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 ('List') and resource ('networks'), specifying scope ('in a range'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'list_ranges' or 'list_hosts' by focusing on networks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential network-related siblings like 'get_network_topology' or 'diagnose_network_issues'.

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, constraints, or compare with other network-related tools in the sibling list. The only implicit context is the 'admin only' note for the user_id parameter, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.

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