cocos_add_camera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the projection types (ORTHO/PERSPECTIVE) and a use case, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read or write operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing nodes), or error handling. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey key information: the tool's action and a parameter explanation with a use-case hint. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the main function, making it efficient and easy 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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, most parameter semantics, and overall context needed for effective use. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not provide sufficient guidance for a tool of this scope, especially with zero schema description coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains the 'projection' parameter (0=ORTHO, 1=PERSPECTIVE) and hints at usage, leaving the other 10 parameters (e.g., scene_path, node_id, priority, ortho_height) undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately clarify parameter meanings or interactions.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('cc.Camera'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on camera attachment rather than other components like scripts, animations, or colliders, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 implied usage context with 'For minimap/split-screen,' suggesting when this tool might be applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any 'when-not' scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the limited hint.

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