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 key behavioral traits: it performs a mutation (rotation), queries fresh state automatically to ensure accuracy, and handles potential manual changes by the user. This adds valuable context beyond basic function, though it could mention side effects like rate limits or error conditions.

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 action, context, and behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation with state querying), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, relative movement, and automatic state handling. However, it could improve by detailing return values or error cases, slightly reducing 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'degrees' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage or constraints further. Baseline is 3 since 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 ('rotate the key light clockwise'), specifies the resource ('key light'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the direction (clockwise) and relative movement (decreases azimuth). It differentiates from 'rotate_key_light_counterclockwise' and other rotation tools, providing precise verb+resource+scope.

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 context by stating it rotates 'relative to current position' and 'automatically queries fresh state before performing the rotation to ensure accuracy,' which suggests when to use it (for precise adjustments). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'rotate_key_light_counterclockwise' or 'set_key_light_position_spherical,' so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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