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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all children') but does not reveal critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 ('Get all children of an object') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core function, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for brevity in tool descriptions.

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 hierarchical retrieval tool with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error conditions, or how 'children' are defined in this system (e.g., 3D objects, nodes). For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Parent object identifier' for 'id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the hierarchy context for 'recursive' or examples for 'typeFilter'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 'Get all children of an object' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('children of an object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'children' means in this context (e.g., 3D modeling objects, nodes, or files) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getProperty' or 'getSelection', which also retrieve data but target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid object ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'listGroups' or 'getFaces', which might retrieve related hierarchical data. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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