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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: that this is an asynchronous operation (not immediate), requires polling via 'task_status', and requires a separate download step via 'download_model'. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or cost implications, but covers the essential workflow.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the async workflow. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 this is a complex async operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the async nature and workflow dependencies but doesn't mention potential limitations, error conditions, or quality expectations that might be helpful for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain prompt formatting best practices or face count tradeoffs). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Generate a 3D model') and resource ('from a text prompt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'image_to_3d' or 'multiview_to_3d' which use different input types. The verb 'generate' is precise and the resource '3D model' is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Generate a 3D model from a text prompt') and provides clear alternatives for related operations ('use task_status to poll progress and download_model to retrieve the result'). It distinguishes this from synchronous tools by noting it's an async operation.

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