Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the behavioral effect of FOV values (wider vs. narrower angle), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the value is out of typical range (0.5-5.0), leaving gaps 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently explains the tool's purpose and the effect of parameter values. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter mutation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, which would improve completeness for safe agent use.

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%, with the schema providing a clear description of the 'fov' parameter including its type, constraints, and typical range. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of lower vs. higher values (wider vs. narrower angle), but this is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'lower = wider angle' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'camera field of view (FOV)', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_camera_fov' (read vs. write) and 'increase_camera_fov'/'decrease_camera_fov' (absolute vs. relative adjustment), providing clear differentiation.

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 by explaining the effect of FOV values (lower = wider, higher = narrower), which helps in selecting appropriate values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'increase_camera_fov' or 'decrease_camera_fov', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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