Hello3DMCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the tool 'automatically queries fresh state before performing the rotation to ensure accuracy', which is a critical implementation detail not obvious from the name or schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the light reaches rotation 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 the second adds important behavioral context about state querying. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the action and automatic state management. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (success confirmation, new position, etc.) and doesn't mention error handling or rotation limits, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 the 'degrees' parameter with its type, constraints, and default value. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data.

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 explicitly states the action ('rotate the fill light counterclockwise'), specifies the effect ('increases azimuth'), and identifies the target resource ('fill light'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rotate_fill_light_clockwise' by specifying the direction of rotation.

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 orientation and mentions automatic state querying for accuracy, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rotate_fill_light_clockwise' or 'set_fill_light_position_spherical'. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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