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. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe return format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 Groups by IDs' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient.

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 parameter 'ids' clearly documented as 'Group identifiers' in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing that IDs are used. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('multiple Groups by IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from listGroups by specifying retrieval by IDs rather than listing all groups. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with getGroups (singular) if that exists, though the sibling list includes only listGroups and updateGroups.

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 listGroups or getGroups (if singular). It mentions 'by IDs' which implies usage when IDs are known, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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