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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read-only query (implied by 'Get' and usage context), returns specific data (pitch, yaw, roll angles), and has no side effects. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, latency, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second specifies the return format, and the third and fourth provide critical usage context. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is compensated by detailing the return values (pitch, yaw, roll angles), making this sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (as there are none), which is appropriate. It focuses instead on output semantics, explaining what the return values represent (pitch, yaw, roll angles), which is valuable given the lack of an output 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current model rotation as Euler angles in degrees (XYZ order).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('model rotation'), and output format ('Euler angles in degrees (XYZ order)'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_model_rotation' or 'nudge_model_pitch_down' which modify rotation rather than retrieve it.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Query this before relative rotation changes (e.g., "rotate 10 degrees") to ensure accuracy.' It also mentions an alternative approach: 'For absolute changes, you may use recently queried state from context if no manual interactions occurred,' helping the agent decide between querying again or relying on cached data.

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