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' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid IDs), or the return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get multiple SubdivisionSurfaces') and specifies the key input ('by IDs'), making it easy to parse and understand 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 likely returns data. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., object details, properties), error behavior, or usage context. For a retrieval tool in a complex 3D modeling environment, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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' documented as 'SubdivisionSurface identifiers'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('multiple SubdivisionSurfaces by IDs'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'listSubdivisionSurfaces' by specifying retrieval by IDs rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'Get' entails (e.g., fetching data vs. objects), which prevents a perfect score.

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 'listSubdivisionSurfaces' or 'getMetadata'. The description implies usage when IDs are known, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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