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 mentions 'admin only' for the user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't describe what the audit actually does, whether it's read-only or modifies anything, what resources it examines, how long it takes, or what format the report takes. For a security audit tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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 appropriately concise with three brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter and return value sections. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the natural language description.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a security audit tool with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description should provide more context about what the audit examines, its scope, and behavioral characteristics to be complete.

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 only mentions that 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)', which adds minimal context about permissions but doesn't explain what effect specifying a user_id has on the audit scope or results. The single parameter remains poorly documented.

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 ('Run') and resource ('security audit on the range'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'compliance_check' or 'get_vulnerability_scan', which might have overlapping security-related functions.

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 minimal guidance - only mentioning that 'user_id' is 'admin only'. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compliance_check' or 'get_vulnerability_scan', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for running a security audit.

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