Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action is 'revoke' (implying a mutation), but lacks details on permissions required (e.g., admin rights), side effects (e.g., whether access is permanently removed), error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'admin only' for 'user_id' hints at authorization needs but is insufficient for comprehensive 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the 'Returns' section is vague ('Revoke result'), which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.

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 (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and sibling differentiation. The output schema may provide return value details, reducing the burden on the description, but critical gaps remain for safe and effective use.

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 explains 'target_user_id' as 'User ID to revoke access from' and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)', adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify parameter formats (e.g., UUIDs), interactions, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('revoke') and resource ('range access') with the target ('from a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_range_access' or 'grant_range_access', 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 like 'clear_range_access' or 'remove_user', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only implied usage is revoking access from a user, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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