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 it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose if it requires specific permissions, what happens if nothing is selected (e.g., returns empty list or error), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of object IDs, names, or full data), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'select'. For a read operation in a complex 3D modeling context, more context is needed.

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 'domain' parameter documented as 'Optional domain to filter results (e.g., 'mesh', 'animation')'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what domains are available or how filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 currently selected objects' clearly states the action (get) and target (selected objects), but it's vague about what 'objects' means in this context (e.g., 3D models, vertices, materials) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'getProperty' or 'getMetadata'. It's functional but lacks specificity.

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 if this is for retrieving selection state after operations like 'select' or 'clearSelection', or how it differs from 'getProperty' for selection-related queries. The description alone offers no usage context.

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