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 tool shares configuration and returns a share result with an access link, which implies a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether sharing is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description covers basic behavior but misses critical context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section listing parameters with brief semantics, and a 'Returns' section. There's no redundant information, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the parameter explanations, but overall it's efficient.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains all parameters and the return value, which helps compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. However, as a mutation tool with siblings like 'grant_range_access', it should provide more context on usage differences and behavioral details to be fully adequate.

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 four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema. For example, it clarifies that 'target_user_ids' is a list of user IDs to share with and 'permissions' includes options like read, clone, modify. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., if permissions are case-sensitive) or dependencies between parameters, 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 tool's purpose: 'Share range configuration with other users.' It specifies the verb ('share') and resource ('range configuration'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grant_range_access' or 'clear_range_access', which appear related to range access management.

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, such as whether a range must exist or be in a specific state, nor does it compare to siblings like 'grant_range_access' or 'clear_range_access'. The only implied usage is from the parameter 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', which hints at admin requirements but isn't explicit about when to include it.

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