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. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), potential performance impacts, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool ('getSubdivisionSurfaces'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'SubdivisionSurfaces' are, how they differ from other resources, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively without trial and error. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Optional filters to apply', 'Maximum number of results'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining filter types or pagination context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 SubdivisionSurfaces' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('SubdivisionSurfaces'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getSubdivisionSurfaces' or explain what 'SubdivisionSurfaces' are in this context, leaving room for ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 like 'getSubdivisionSurfaces' or other list operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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