Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Sets' the camera distance, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose other traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what the default or current distance is, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two clear sentences that directly explain the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a single-parameter mutation tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. However, it's adequate for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more comprehensive guidance.

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, with the 'distance' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't provide additional context like units, typical ranges, or effects on the subject. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the camera distance from the origin (dollying). Moves the camera closer or farther from the subject.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), resource ('camera distance'), and effect ('closer or farther'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dolly_camera_in' or 'dolly_camera_out', which appear to be incremental alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sibling tools such as 'dolly_camera_in', 'dolly_camera_out', or 'get_camera_distance', nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative guidance reduces its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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