Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a numeric value ('0.0 or higher'), implies it's a read operation (consistent with 'get'), and mentions accuracy considerations for state changes. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, latency, or side effects like rate limits.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose and follow with specific usage guidelines. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and the return format. It could improve by explicitly stating it's read-only or mentioning error cases, but it covers most needed context given the simplicity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context about the return value ('0.0 or higher') and usage scenarios, which provides semantic value beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action ('Get the current key light intensity value') and resource ('key light'), with precise numerical context ('0.0 or higher'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on intensity retrieval rather than color, position, or other light properties.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use before relative intensity changes for accuracy, and use recently queried state for absolute changes if no manual interactions occurred. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus relying on context, with clear alternatives named.

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