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. 'Select one or more objects' implies a non-destructive operation that changes application state, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether selection persists across operations, if it requires specific object types, what happens with invalid IDs, or if it triggers UI updates. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 - just one sentence with four words. While efficient, it may be under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every word earns its place, but more context might be needed for this operation in a complex 3D modeling environment.

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 this is a state-changing operation in a complex 3D modeling system with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'selection' means in this context, how it affects other operations, what gets returned (if anything), or error conditions. The tool interacts with many sibling operations but provides no context about those relationships.

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 already documents all three parameters (ids, mode, domain) with descriptions and enum values for mode. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'Select one or more objects' states a clear verb ('select') and resource ('objects'), but it's vague about what 'select' means in this 3D modeling context. It doesn't specify whether this is for UI highlighting, data retrieval, or setting active objects for operations. Compared to sibling tools like 'getSelection' (which retrieves current selection) and 'clearSelection' (which clears selection), it lacks 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. It doesn't mention when selection is needed (e.g., before applying transformations or edits), how it relates to 'getSelection' (which retrieves rather than sets selection), or what happens with the selected objects afterward. There's no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.

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