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. It effectively discloses key behaviors: the tool returns a dictionary with example names and descriptions, and the examples are directly usable for deployment. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps given the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on examples and returns, and ends with a practical usage example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage, behavioral output, and includes an example, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in this context.

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 appropriately focuses on output semantics by explaining the return format (dictionary with names and descriptions) and providing an example, adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available YAML configuration examples'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_yaml_example' by focusing on listing examples rather than retrieving content, which is evident from the example provided.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get ready-to-use YAML examples for deployment with Ludus. It also names an alternative tool ('get_yaml_example') for retrieving specific YAML content, clearly differentiating usage contexts and preventing confusion with siblings.

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