list_3d_scenes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral scope: only scenes owned by this MCP process are listed, and the result includes local viewer URLs. No destructive or side-effect behavior needs disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the object, the ownership restriction, and the output content. No filler, no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list with an output schema, the description gives the essential context: which scenes are listed (owned by this MCP process) and what they contain (local viewer URLs). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add param semantics. It clearly conveys the scope in prose instead. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('scenes'), and adds a clear scope ('owned by this MCP process') plus what is returned ('local viewer URLs'). This distinguishes it from the many scene-related siblings like open_3d_files, inspect_3d_scene, and set_3d_camera.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_3d_files, inspect_3d_scene, or manage_3d_scene_states. The scope is implied by 'owned by this MCP process,' but there is no explicit when/why or exclusion.

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