Hello3DMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the rotational action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a relative or absolute adjustment, the magnitude/step size of rotation, whether changes are immediate or gradual, what visual feedback to expect, or any side effects. 'Rotate' implies mutation but safety/impact isn't addressed.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core action without wasted words. Front-loaded with the main verb 'rotate' and immediately specifies target, direction, and movement pattern. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'leftward' means relative to current orientation or viewpoint, doesn't mention coordinate systems or units, and provides no information about expected outcomes or visual changes. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's action. Baseline would be 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('rotate'), target resource ('fill light'), direction ('leftward'), and movement pattern ('in an arc around the center of the model'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swing_fill_light_right' by specifying direction, but doesn't fully differentiate from other rotation tools like 'rotate_fill_light_clockwise' which might achieve similar effects through different mechanisms.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rotate_fill_light_counterclockwise' or 'move_fill_light_toward_direction'. The description implies it's for adjusting fill light position, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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