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 Keyframes by IDs', which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires permissions, has rate limits, returns partial results for invalid IDs, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get multiple Keyframes') and specifies the method ('by IDs'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose in conveying the tool's function.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' entails (e.g., returns data, objects, or metadata), how results are structured, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns keyframe data, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'ids' documented as 'Keyframe identifiers'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by mentioning 'by IDs', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 Keyframes by IDs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Keyframes'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getKeyframes' (singular) or 'listKeyframes'. It specifies 'multiple' and 'by IDs' which adds some specificity, but lacks detail about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve data vs. fetch objects).

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 like 'listKeyframes' or 'getKeyframes' (if a singular version exists). The description implies usage for retrieving specific keyframes by IDs, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it over other retrieval methods.

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