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' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, whether it returns partial results if some IDs are invalid, error handling, or what format the curves are returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 at just 4 words ('Get multiple Curves by IDs'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the key constraint (by IDs). This is an example of efficient communication where 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 the complexity (batch retrieval operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Curves' are in this 3D modeling context, doesn't describe the return format, doesn't mention error handling for invalid IDs, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool that presumably returns complex geometry data, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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% (the 'ids' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Curve identifiers'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid Curve ID, whether there are format requirements, or constraints on the array size.

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 Curves by IDs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Curves'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'Curves' are in this context (likely 3D modeling curves) and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'getCurves' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'listCurves' - the sibling 'listCurves' suggests there's a listing operation, making this tool's batch retrieval by IDs less clearly differentiated.

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. There's no mention of when this batch retrieval by IDs is preferable to 'listCurves' (which appears to list all curves) or other get operations like 'getProperty'. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with siblings are provided.

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