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 states the tool is 'admin only', which is crucial permission information, and mentions it returns 'List of all ranges in the system', giving basic output context. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies non-destructive).

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 brief with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose and admin requirement, followed by separate Args and Returns sections. While efficient, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be integrated more smoothly, but overall there's minimal waste.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the admin requirement and return type, but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a tool with one parameter and simple functionality, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'user_id' parameter and adds that it's 'Optional' and 'must be admin', which provides some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what effect providing a user_id has (e.g., filtering results) or the format/constraints of the user_id value, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('List all ranges') and specifies the resource ('ranges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_ranges_detailed' or 'get_range_by_user', which could provide similar functionality with different scopes or detail levels.

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 some guidance by indicating this is 'admin only' and mentions the optional 'user_id' parameter, which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_ranges_detailed' or 'get_range_by_user', leaving the agent to infer based on parameter availability and admin requirement.

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