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 does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'rotate'), it queries fresh state before acting, and it works relative to current position. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or permission requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 states the core action, and the second adds important behavioral context about state querying. No wasted words, well-structured 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 operation's behavior and state management. It could mention what happens on success/failure or return values, but given the tool's relative simplicity, it's mostly complete.

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 adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 counterclockwise'), specifies the resource ('key light'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the direction (counterclockwise) and effect (increases azimuth). This differentiates it from 'rotate_key_light_clockwise' and other rotation tools.

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 about when to use this tool by explaining it rotates relative to current position and queries fresh state for accuracy. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'rotate_key_light_clockwise' or 'set_key_light_position_spherical'.

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