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. 'List all Channels' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), whether results are filtered/sorted, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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?

Extremely concise with zero waste—a single three-word phrase. It's front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how parameters interact. Given the complexity implied by filters and pagination, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how filters work, what parentId refers to, or pagination strategy. 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 'List all Channels' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Channels'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getChannels'. It doesn't specify what 'all' means in context (e.g., all in workspace, all accessible, all in hierarchy).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getChannels' or other 'list*' tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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