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 it's a 'get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns partial results if some IDs are invalid, what format the UVMaps are returned in, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and operating in a complex 3D modeling context with many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what UVMaps are, what data they contain, how they're returned, or how this differs from list operations. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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' clearly documented as 'UVMap identifiers' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, simply restating 'by IDs'. 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 UVMaps by IDs' clearly states the action (get) and resource (UVMaps), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getUVMaps' vs 'listUVMaps'. It specifies 'by IDs' which adds some specificity, but doesn't explain what UVMaps are or how this differs from other get operations.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listUVMaps' or 'getProperty'. The description implies it's for retrieving specific UVMaps when you know their IDs, but there's no explicit comparison to sibling tools or context about prerequisites.

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