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 key behavioral traits: it performs an adjustment (implying mutation), automatically queries fresh state for accuracy, and handles potential manual changes. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens at boundary limits (e.g., minimum elevation), which would be helpful 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and a key behavioral detail (automatic state querying). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (a mutation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, behavioral nuance (state querying), and implies mutation, but could benefit from mentioning potential side effects, error handling, or confirmation of success to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'degrees' parameter well-documented in the schema (type, exclusiveMinimum, default). The description does not add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the impact of different degree values or typical usage ranges. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 key light elevation downward relative to current position') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'nudge_key_light_elevation_up' by specifying the direction. It uses a precise verb ('Adjust') and identifies the resource ('key light elevation'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for usage by explaining that it automatically queries fresh state before adjustment, which is useful for ensuring accuracy even after manual changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_key_light_position_spherical' or 'swing_key_light_down', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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