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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but doesn't specify the magnitude of movement, whether it's incremental or absolute, or any side effects like rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like movement increments or interaction with other tools, which could be important for effective use in a 3D modeling context with many sibling tools.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 ('Move the fill light closer to the center') and specifies the resource ('fill light'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'walk_fill_light_out' or other fill light movement tools like 'move_fill_light_toward_direction', leaving some ambiguity about precise 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions moving 'closer to the center', which implies a specific direction, but it doesn't clarify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools like 'walk_fill_light_out' or 'set_fill_light_position_spherical', 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.