cocos_add_box_character_controller

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the controller handles 'ground snapping, slope limits, step-up automatically' which reveals automation capabilities. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or mutation effects (e.g., whether this modifies existing components).

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and key capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for an agent 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 13 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete despite having an output schema. It explains the 'what' and 'when' well but leaves the 'how' (parameter usage) entirely undocumented. For a complex tool with many numeric parameters, more guidance on parameter relationships would be helpful.

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% (13 parameters with no descriptions in schema). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or the various dimension/extent parameters actually mean or how they relate to the character controller.

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 specific action ('Attach cc.BoxCharacterController') and resource ('AABB-shaped kinematic character'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_capsule_character_controller' by specifying the shape type. It provides a precise technical purpose beyond just the tool name.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this INSTEAD of RigidBody + Collider for player movement') and provides a clear alternative scenario to avoid. This gives the agent specific guidance on tool selection versus other physics components.

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