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 does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an async operation requiring polling via task_status, and specifies output mesh types (quad or triangle). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 appropriately sized with three sentences, each earning its place: states purpose, specifies output options, and explains async behavior. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words.

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 3D processing), no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage context, though it could benefit from more on error handling or prerequisites, but the output schema reduces need for return value details.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying quad/triangle output relates to the 'quad' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Create a lowpoly version'), resource ('a generated 3D model'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying retopology functionality (unlike convert_format, download_model, etc.). It precisely defines what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (for creating lowpoly versions) and mentions the async nature requiring task_status for polling, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., stylize or other 3D tools).

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