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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it discloses the automatic state querying behavior ('automatically queries fresh state before performing the adjustment'), which is crucial for understanding reliability. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the movement exceeds 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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key behavioral trait, the second provides the direction options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information (what it does and the state querying) is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains the action, key behavior (state querying), and parameter options. However, it doesn't describe the return value or what happens on success/failure, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds the list of available direction names, which partially overlaps with the schema's description but provides a quick reference. It doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interaction between direction and degrees parameters.

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 ('Move the fill light toward a specific direction relative to current position') and identifies the resource ('fill light'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_key_light_toward_direction' by specifying the fill light, and from 'swing_fill_light_*' tools by describing directional movement rather than incremental swinging.

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 about when to use this tool: for moving the fill light toward a direction, with automatic state querying for accuracy. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies it's for directional movement rather than other adjustments like elevation or rotation.

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