trident-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it 'Returns progress info' with specific statuses (queued, running, success, failed), which is useful. However, it lacks details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a monitoring tool.

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 front-loaded and efficient with two sentences: the first defines the purpose, and the second specifies the return values. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and basic behavior, but as a monitoring tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error scenarios or performance hints.

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 the 'taskId' parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Task ID from a previous generation or post-processing call', reinforcing the parameter's purpose but not providing additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('Check the status') and resource ('async 3D generation or post-processing task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'image_to_3d' or 'text_to_3d' that create tasks rather than monitor them. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for 'async' tasks from 'previous generation or post-processing calls', guiding when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., no direct sibling for task status, but could mention it's for monitoring, not creating tasks).

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