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's a mutation tool (implied by 'rotate'), it queries fresh state before acting to ensure accuracy, and it accounts for manual changes. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, 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 the core purpose stated first and additional behavioral context added in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and context, but could improve by mentioning error handling or return values. The high schema coverage helps compensate for some gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'degrees' fully documented in the input schema (type, constraints, default). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Rotate the fill light clockwise'), specifies the resource ('fill light'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the direction effect ('decreases azimuth') and contrasting with 'rotate_fill_light_counterclockwise' in the sibling list. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 when to use this tool by explaining its effect ('decreases azimuth') and mentioning that it queries fresh state before rotation, which is useful for accuracy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'rotate_fill_light_counterclockwise' or other light adjustment tools), though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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