3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Clear' implies a mutation (likely destructive), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible (e.g., with 'undo'), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise ('Clear current selection') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation tool in a 3D modeling context with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'selection' entails, how clearing interacts with other operations, or what happens post-clear. The minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'domain' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. Since the tool has only one optional parameter, a score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps.

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 'Clear current selection' states a specific action (clear) on a resource (selection), but it's vague about what 'selection' means in this 3D modeling context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'select' or 'getSelection'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the selection scope.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active selection), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'select' (for setting selection) or 'getSelection' (for retrieving it).

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