Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic effect ('narrower angle, more zoomed in'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a reversible operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the FOV reaches a minimum value. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 that front-loads the core action and effect with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, side effects, and how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., 'set_camera_fov' for exact values). The simplicity of the tool mitigates this somewhat, but more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 the parameter 'amount' documented as optional with a default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no units, typical ranges, or interaction effects). Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('decrease') and resource ('camera field of view'), with additional clarification about the effect ('narrower angle, more zoomed in'). It distinguishes from sibling 'increase_camera_fov' by specifying the opposite direction, though it doesn't explicitly mention other camera-related tools like 'set_camera_fov' or 'get_camera_fov' for full 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_camera_fov' (which might allow setting an exact value) or 'increase_camera_fov' (the opposite direction). The description implies usage for narrowing the FOV, but lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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