3D-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it might be destructive, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having offset/limit parameters), or what format the results will be in. The single phrase provides no behavioral context whatsoever.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this description suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase 'List all UVMaps' fails to provide necessary context and guidance. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness - this description is brief but inadequate, not efficiently structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what UVMaps are in this context (3D modeling/texture mapping), doesn't describe the return format, doesn't provide usage context, and offers no behavioral transparency. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (3D modeling operations) and lack of structured documentation, this description leaves critical gaps.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what UVMaps are, what filters might be applicable, or how parentId relates to the resource hierarchy. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 UVMaps' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'listUVMaps' without adding meaningful context. While it does specify the resource (UVMaps), it lacks a specific verb beyond 'List' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getUVMaps' which appears to serve a similar purpose. The description fails to clarify what differentiates listing from getting in this context.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose listUVMaps over getUVMaps (its obvious sibling), no context about prerequisites or typical use cases, and no exclusion criteria. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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