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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors, skipping), or the return format (e.g., array of objects). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 Layers by IDs'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and key input method.

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 nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and return values. For a retrieval tool, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 'ids' parameter documented as 'Layer identifiers' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUIDs), constraints (e.g., max array size), or relationship to other tools. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in 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 Layers by IDs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Layers'), specifying it retrieves multiple items using identifiers. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listLayers' (which likely lists all layers) and 'createLayers'/'deleteLayers' (which modify layers), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getLayers' vs 'getChildren' or other 'get' tools. This is clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'getLayers' instead of 'listLayers' (e.g., for specific IDs vs all layers) or other retrieval tools like 'getChildren'. There's no context about prerequisites, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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