Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('List all available scenarios') and return format ('Dictionary of scenario keys and descriptions'), but lacks behavioral details like pagination, sorting, filtering, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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, read-only operation, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and the return format. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage guidance to be fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 ('all available scenarios'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list-type siblings like list_ranges, list_templates, or list_users, which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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. With many sibling tools that list different resources (e.g., list_ranges, list_templates), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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