trident-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context: it discloses this is an async operation (not immediate), describes the required workflow (poll with task_status, then download with download_model), and clarifies the output isn't returned directly. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational guidance.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and supported formats, the second provides crucial workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded. The structure efficiently communicates both what the tool does and how to use it.

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's complexity (async operation requiring multiple steps), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, lists formats, describes the async nature, and provides the complete workflow. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The description compensates well for the lack of annotations by providing operational guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists the supported formats (which the schema's enum-like description already covers) and clarifies 'originalTaskId' refers to 'the model to convert.' This meets the baseline for high 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 specific action ('convert a generated 3D model') and resource ('to a different file format'), listing all supported formats. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_model' and 'task_status' by focusing on format conversion rather than retrieval or status checking.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('convert a generated 3D model to a different file format') and provides clear workflow guidance: 'This is an async operation — use task_status to poll progress, then download_model to retrieve the converted file.' This directly references two sibling tools as alternatives for different steps in the process.

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