Reads the unified text style for a TextField or RichText, so agents can inspect font, size, color, and alignment settings in FairyGUI Editor.
读取 TextField/RichText 的统一文本样式。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| object_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'read'. It does not disclose how the object is resolved from id/name/path, what happens when no object matches, or whether any side effects occur. The read verb implies non-mutation, but little else is transparent.
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 concise sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is under-specified: it omits parameter semantics and usage context, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the tool still has three optional object-identification parameters and no annotations. The description does not explain how to select the object or when this tool is appropriate, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent.
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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. object_id, object_name, and object_path are left entirely undocumented, so the agent cannot infer how to target the desired TextField/RichText.
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 states a clear read operation on a specific resource ('TextField/RichText 的统一文本样式'), and the get/set contrast with fgui_set_text_style helps distinguish it. However, 'unified text style' is somewhat jargon-heavy and the object-targeting aspect is left to the schema.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fgui_set_text_style or other inspection tools. The read intent is implied, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.