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 mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the log entries have, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic functionality.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides clear parameter explanations in a formatted Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values) and only 2 parameters with good semantic explanation in the description, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, for a tool that likely involves sensitive access logs and admin permissions, more context about security implications, data formats, or usage constraints would be beneficial. The description meets minimum requirements but could be more complete.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond what the schema provides. For 'user_id', it specifies 'Optional user ID (admin only)' - clarifying both optionality and permission requirements. For 'limit', it explains 'Maximum number of log entries to return' which gives purpose to the numeric parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool's purpose with 'Get range access logs' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('range access logs'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_range_access' (which likely shows current access permissions) and 'get_range_logs' (which might be different logs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar-sounding tools.

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. There are several sibling tools with 'get_range' prefixes (get_range, get_range_access, get_range_logs, get_range_by_user) that might overlap in functionality, but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific tool.

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