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. 'Import' implies a write operation that adds data to the system, but the description doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing geometry, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., creating materials), or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification—it lacks necessary details about purpose, usage, and behavior. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing sufficient value, so it doesn't merit a perfect score.

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 complexity (importing geometry with multiple formats and options), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after import (e.g., geometry added to scene, return values), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a mutation tool in a 3D modeling context with rich sibling tools, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'items' and its nested properties (format, data, options). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Import geometry data sources' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'importGeometry'. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clarifies what the tool actually does (e.g., 'imports geometry files into the 3D scene' or 'loads external geometry data'). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'exportGeometry', it doesn't provide meaningful differentiation beyond the obvious name contrast.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing geometry files), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing geometry), or contextual cues (e.g., use for initial scene setup). With many sibling tools for geometry manipulation (like 'combineMeshes', 'extrudeFaces'), the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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