3D-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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned values. For a tool that presumably reads data from multiple objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool that reads property values from multiple objects with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what types of objects or properties are supported, what the return format looks like, or any limitations (e.g., maximum batch size). Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('items' and 'recursive') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides about these parameters, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('property values from multiple objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getProperty' (which appears to fetch from a single object), missing an opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getProperty' (for single objects) or other query tools. The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for using this multi-object approach.

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