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 mentions that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which hints at permission requirements, but does not cover other critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Maintenance window scheduling result' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 structured with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to parse. It is relatively concise, with each parameter explanation being brief. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Maintenance window scheduling result'), and some sentences could be more informative without adding unnecessary length.

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 complexity of scheduling a maintenance window (likely a mutation with system-wide impact), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It misses critical context such as side effects, error conditions, return value details, and how it interacts with other range operations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Start time in ISO format'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints, formats for 'operations', or implications of 'notify_users', resulting in only partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Schedule a maintenance window') and the target ('for the range'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'schedule_range_tasks' or 'schedule_snapshots', which could involve similar scheduling concepts, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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. With many sibling tools related to scheduling and range management (e.g., 'schedule_range_tasks', 'schedule_snapshots'), there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.