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 'Get multiple Drivers by IDs', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (e.g., non-destructive), what permissions are required, how it handles invalid IDs (e.g., errors or omissions), or the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 multiple Drivers by IDs'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, return format) and usage guidelines. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the response structure, making this incomplete 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'ids' parameter documented as 'Driver identifiers' of type array of strings. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only reiterates 'by IDs' without explaining format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does most of the work.

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 Drivers by IDs' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Drivers), with specificity about retrieving multiple items via IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listDrivers' (which likely lists all) and 'getDrivers' (singular retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling 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. The description implies usage when you have specific Driver IDs, but it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'listDrivers' (for all drivers) or 'getDrivers' (for a single driver), nor does it discuss prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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