3D-MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (hinted by 'limit' and 'offset' in schema), filtering capabilities, or potential side effects like performance impacts. More context is needed for a mutation-heavy server environment.

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 'List all Layers' is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 3D modeling/server context with many sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how it fits into workflows (e.g., vs. 'getLayers'), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters like 'filters', 'limit', 'offset', and 'parentId' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying listing, which aligns with the schema but doesn't compensate for or enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 Layers' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Layers'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getLayers' (which might retrieve specific layers) or other list tools (e.g., 'listMaterials'), leaving ambiguity about scope or uniqueness.

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 sibling tools like 'getLayers' (which might fetch specific layers) or 'listMaterials' (for other resources), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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