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. 'Convert triangles to quads' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (e.g., modifies the mesh in-place), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after conversion (e.g., returns success/failure, modifies mesh in-place), potential errors, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by the parameter schema, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'items' parameter and its nested properties (meshId, facesToQuadrangulate, maxAngleDeviation). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Convert triangles to quads' clearly states the action (convert) and the resource (triangles to quads), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'triangulate' or 'createFaces' which might handle similar mesh operations, preventing a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a mesh with triangles), exclusions (e.g., not applicable to quads), or comparison to siblings like 'triangulate' (which does the inverse operation).

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