Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Rollback') which implies a destructive/mutative operation, but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this requires admin privileges (beyond the optional user_id hint), if it's reversible, what happens to current VM state, expected downtime, or error conditions. The mention of 'admin only' for user_id is helpful but insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the Args explain parameters, and Returns indicates output. It could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter context into the main description, but there's minimal waste.

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?

For a destructive operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but critical behavioral context is missing: permission requirements, side effects, and rollback implications. It covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when' sufficiently for safe 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming and briefly describing each parameter, including the optional 'admin only' note for user_id. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., VM naming conventions), constraints, or provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves important details uncovered.

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 ('Rollback') and resource ('to a snapshot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'batch_rollback_snapshots' by being singular, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other snapshot-related tools like 'remove_snapshot' or 'list_snapshots'.

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., whether the VM must be powered off), compare to batch operations, or specify scenarios where rollback is appropriate versus other recovery methods. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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