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. 'Split meshes into separate objects' implies a destructive/mutative operation (changing mesh structure), but it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or if there are side effects like modifying scene hierarchy. For a tool that likely alters geometry, this lack of behavioral detail 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and result, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word ('split', 'meshes', 'separate objects') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 mesh-splitting operation (likely mutative with structural changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'separate objects' means in context (e.g., new mesh entities, scene nodes), potential limitations, or error conditions. For a tool that could have significant scene impact, more completeness 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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'meshes' as input, which the schema already covers via 'items' with 'meshId'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though 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 clearly states the action ('split') and target resource ('meshes'), specifying they become 'separate objects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'combineMeshes' (which does the opposite) and 'duplicate' (which copies rather than splits). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like 'triangulate' or 'quadrangulate', keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing existing meshes), scenarios where splitting is appropriate (e.g., for material assignment or export), or warnings about when not to use it (e.g., on already separated meshes). With no usage context provided, this scores low.

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