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: it describes that the tool queries fresh state before adjustment to ensure accuracy, which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the move exceeds limits, leaving some gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 behavioral context and a concise list of directions. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first explains the action, the second adds transparency, and the third clarifies parameter options without redundancy. It is appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavioral context, and parameter options, but lacks details on return values or error handling. For a mutation tool without annotations, it does well but could improve by addressing outcomes or limitations.

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 lists available direction names, which partially overlaps with the schema's description of 'direction'. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between 'direction' and 'degrees' or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 key light toward a specific direction relative to current position') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_fill_light_toward_direction' by specifying 'key light' and from tools like 'swing_key_light_left' by focusing on directional movement rather than incremental swinging. It provides a verb+resource+scope that is precise and differentiated.

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 implies usage by mentioning it 'automatically queries fresh state before performing the adjustment to ensure accuracy', which suggests it should be used when the light's position might have changed manually. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swing_key_light_left' or 'rotate_key_light_clockwise', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is clear in context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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