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 states the tool removes a snapshot, implying a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the removal is permanent, requires specific permissions beyond 'admin only', has side effects on the VM, or includes error handling. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core action ('Remove a snapshot.'). The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns: Removal result' is vague. There is minimal waste, but the lack of detail in the return statement slightly reduces efficiency.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and the basic action but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permanence, permissions) and relies on the output schema for return values, which is acceptable 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 description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (vm_name, snapshot_name, user_id) and adds semantic context: vm_name and snapshot_name are required, and user_id is optional and 'admin only'. However, it does not explain parameter formats (e.g., string constraints) or interactions, leaving gaps. With 0% coverage, this partial compensation results in a baseline 3.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a snapshot'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_remove_snapshots' or 'rollback_snapshot', which limits the score to 4 instead of 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 (e.g., 'batch_remove_snapshots' for multiple snapshots or 'rollback_snapshot' for reverting). It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, but this is a parameter detail, not usage context. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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