3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' suggests a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or the return format. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action, lacking crucial context for safe invocation.

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 with zero waste: 'Get multiple Clips by IDs'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Clip' is, the expected return values, error conditions, or usage context. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more guidance to compensate, but it falls short.

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 the 'ids' parameter documented as 'Clip identifiers'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 multiple Clips by IDs' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Clips) with a specific scope (by IDs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'listClips' (which presumably lists all clips) and 'getClips' (singular) by specifying batch retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'getClips' (if that exists) or other retrieval tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'listClips' or 'getClips' (singular). It implies usage when you have specific IDs, but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings. This leaves the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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