Ludus FastMCP

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'admin only' for user_id, hinting at permission needs, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether scheduling is idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what 'Task scheduling result' entails, leaving significant gaps.

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 a purpose statement and sections for Args and Returns, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated, and some sentences lack depth, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and parameter specifics, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a scheduling tool.

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 parameters (tasks, schedule, user_id) and adds that user_id is 'Optional user ID (admin only),' but provides no details on task structure, cron format, or validation rules, failing to adequately explain semantics beyond basic names.

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 states the tool 'Schedule recurring tasks for the range,' which clarifies the action (schedule) and target (range tasks). However, it lacks specificity about what 'tasks' entail or how they differ from other scheduling tools like 'schedule_maintenance_window' or 'schedule_snapshots,' making it vague 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'admin only' for user_id but does not clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other scheduling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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