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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions accuracy concerns, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether it returns cached vs. real-time data. The guidance on context usage adds some value, but more behavioral detail would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's 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 annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on the return format (e.g., units, data structure) which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a getter tool, this is a minor gap.

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. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description focuses on usage rather than redundant parameter explanations.

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 scale in each dimension (x, y, z) as scale factors.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('model scale'), and output format ('scale factors'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'scale_model' (which modifies scale) and other getters like 'get_model_rotation'.

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 usage guidelines: 'Query this before relative scale changes (e.g., "scale by 1.5x") to ensure accuracy. For absolute changes, you may use recently queried state from context if no manual interactions occurred.' It specifies when to use (before relative changes) and when alternatives are acceptable (using cached state for absolute changes), with clear context.

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