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. 'List all Drivers' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is safe, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context, though it doesn't contradict anything.

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, 'List all Drivers', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Drivers' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for effective tool use.

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 clear documentation for all 4 parameters (filters, limit, offset, parentId). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate 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 'List all Drivers' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Drivers'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Drivers' are in this context (e.g., 3D modeling drivers, device drivers) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getDrivers' or 'createDrivers', making it somewhat vague. It's not tautological but could be more precise.

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 any prerequisites, context for use, or compare it to similar tools like 'getDrivers' or 'query', leaving the agent with no usage instructions. This is a significant gap in helping the agent make informed decisions.

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