Hello3DMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'key light' means in this system, what happens after setting the color, or whether there are constraints beyond the parameter schema. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer much about the tool's behavior and effects.

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 parameter 'color' fully documented in the schema including format examples and available color names. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 action ('Set') and target resource ('the color of the key light'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_fill_light_color', but the specificity of 'key light' provides implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_key_light_color' (for reading) and 'set_fill_light_color' (for a different light), there's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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