Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions accuracy considerations for relative changes, but does not cover aspects like error conditions, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error handling) since annotations are absent. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on usage context rather than repeating what's already in the structured data. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 area size') and resource ('width and height in units'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_key_light_color' or 'get_key_light_intensity' that query different properties of the same resource. It precisely defines what information is retrieved without 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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Query this before relative size changes to ensure accuracy') and mentions an alternative approach ('For absolute changes, you may use recently queried state from context'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it directly to other sibling tools like 'get_fill_light_size'.

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