3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all Meshs' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns complete or partial data, how results are ordered, or any limitations. It mentions 'all' but the parameters suggest filtering/pagination capabilities, creating some ambiguity about what 'all' means.

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 at just three words, with no wasted text. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and many sibling alternatives. The structure is front-loaded but under-specified.

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 list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Meshs' are in this context, how results are returned, or how parameters interact. With many similar sibling tools, more context is needed to distinguish this tool's specific role and behavior.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'List all Meshs' statement. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters affect the listing operation.

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 Meshs' clearly states the action (list) and resource (Meshs), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'getMeshs' or other list tools, and the plural 'Meshs' (likely a typo for 'Meshes') creates ambiguity about the resource being listed.

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. With many sibling tools including 'getMeshs' and other list operations, there's no indication of whether this is for filtered listing, paginated results, or different use cases. The agent must infer usage from parameters alone.

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