3D-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is safe (non-destructive), what permissions might be needed, whether results are paginated (though schema hints at this), what format results return, or any rate limits. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 4 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates. While it could benefit from more detail, what's present is efficiently structured without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 query tool in a 3D modeling context with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'entities' means in this domain, what query capabilities exist, what results look like, or how this integrates with the many specific retrieval tools in the sibling list. For a general query tool in a specialized domain, more context is needed.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'properties' matching works, what entity 'types' are available, or provide examples of query criteria. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Query entities based on criteria' states a general purpose (querying entities) but is vague about what 'entities' refers to in this 3D modeling context. It doesn't specify what types of entities (meshes, vertices, materials, etc.) can be queried or how this differs from sibling tools like 'getProperty', 'getSelection', or various 'list' tools. The description provides a basic verb+object but lacks specificity and sibling 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. With numerous sibling tools for retrieving specific entity types (getMaterials, listVertices, getSelection, etc.), there's no indication whether this is a general-purpose query tool that replaces those, a complementary tool, or when one would choose this over more specific retrieval tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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