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. It discloses important behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Adjust'), it queries fresh state automatically before adjustment, and it ensures accuracy even if manual changes occurred. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the adjustment 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable behavioral context about state querying. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the adjustment behavior and automatic state querying. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or the return value. For a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it's reasonably complete but could benefit from output information.

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 fully documents the 'degrees' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 ('Adjust the fill light elevation downward relative to current position'), identifies the resource ('fill light'), and distinguishes from its sibling 'nudge_fill_light_elevation_up' by specifying the direction. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by explaining the adjustment mechanism.

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 for adjusting fill light elevation downward, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swing_fill_light_down' or 'set_fill_light_position_spherical'. It provides some context about automatic state querying but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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