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. It states 'Get multiple Edges by IDs', which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid IDs (e.g., errors, skips), rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., array of edge objects). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 ('Get multiple Edges by IDs'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and parameter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Edges' are, how results are returned, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with 1 parameter and high schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but lacks necessary behavioral and contextual details to fully guide an AI agent.

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 'Edge identifiers'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it merely restates 'by IDs'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but no extra value from the description.

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 Edges by IDs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Edges'), but it's vague about what 'Edges' are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling edges, graph edges). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getFaces' or 'getVertexs' by specifying 'Edges', but doesn't explain how it differs from 'listEdges' (which might list all edges vs. fetching specific ones).

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'getEdges' (for specific IDs) versus 'listEdges' (for all edges) or other sibling tools like 'getFaces'. The description implies usage by IDs but offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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