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 it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling (e.g., if property doesn't exist), or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks critical details like whether it's safe or has side effects.

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, direct sentence with zero waste: 'Get a property value from an object'. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action 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 the complexity of a property retrieval tool in a 3D modeling context (inferred from sibling tools), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, it should specify more about the object domain (e.g., 3D models), property types, or usage context to help the agent understand when and how to invoke it effectively.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('Object identifier' and 'Path to the property'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of property paths or object types, but this is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 a property value from an object' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('property value from an object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what type of object or property is involved (e.g., 3D model, configuration), and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'getMetadata' or 'query', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools like 'getMetadata', 'query', and batch operations (e.g., 'batchGetProperty'), there's no indication of scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for single property retrieval or specific object types. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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