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 mentions that user_id is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when user_id is omitted, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with a clear three-part structure: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value indication. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers could be more integrated. No wasted words, but could be slightly more polished.

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 (single optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, filtering behavior, and operational characteristics. The description meets basic needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('Optional user ID (admin only)'), explaining its optional nature and permission requirement. However, it doesn't specify format constraints, what 'admin only' means in practice, or how the parameter affects results. This provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List available templates', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_range_templates' or 'list_range_skeletons', leaving ambiguity about what specific type of templates it lists. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 various resources (templates, ranges, skeletons, etc.), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint is in the parameter description ('admin only'), but this isn't integrated into the tool's overall usage guidelines.

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