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 tool publishes a scenario, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions (admin vs. regular user), whether publishing is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the scenario already exists in the repository. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is helpful but insufficient for overall transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter explanations, and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool without annotations. Minor improvement could be integrating usage guidelines into the flow.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations/output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers all parameters and the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, idempotency, errors) and doesn't fully address the complexity of a community publishing operation. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more completeness is needed regarding side effects and constraints.

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 description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (e.g., 'Optional tags for categorization', 'Make scenario publicly accessible', 'Optional user ID (admin only)'). However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples (e.g., format of scenario_key, tag conventions). This partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a scenario to the community repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clone_and_modify_scenario' or 'deploy_scenario' by focusing on community sharing rather than local operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'import_community_scenario' (which might be the inverse operation).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., scenario must exist locally), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'share_range_config' or 'import_community_scenario'. The only implied context is publishing to a community repository, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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