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 for behavioral disclosure. 'List all Edges' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema hints), or output format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 'List all Edges'—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with zero wasted words, making it efficient for quick comprehension. This is a model of brevity in tool descriptions.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how 'filters' work with 'parentId'. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering via 'all Edges', which loosely relates to 'filters' and 'parentId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 Edges' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Edges'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEdges' or 'listFaces', leaving ambiguity about scope or method. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this listing operation.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'getEdges', 'listFaces', 'query'), the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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