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 tool lists templates 'from the community', implying a read-only operation that fetches shared resources, but doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'community' entails. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context about permissions, but overall behavioral traits are under-specified for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter and return info more seamlessly rather than as separate labeled sections, and some wording is slightly redundant (e.g., 'List' in both the purpose and returns).

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return type. However, for a listing tool in a context with many siblings, it lacks details on filtering, pagination, or how it differs from other template-related tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects, but it only partially compensates.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and restriction. However, it doesn't explain the format of user_id or what happens when it's null versus provided, leaving some gaps. With one parameter partially documented, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('available range templates from the community'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'get_range_template', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at a permission requirement, but doesn't explain when this parameter should be used versus omitted. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, and there's no context about when this tool is preferred over similar listing tools in the sibling set.

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