cocos_add_cone_collider_3d

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it 'Attaches'), what permissions or scene state are required, if it has side effects, or the response format. The description is minimal and adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, 'Attach cc.ConeCollider.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it earns a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope, as every word serves a purpose.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter meanings, usage scenarios, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'scene_path', 'node_id', or the geometric properties (radius, height, etc.) mean, their units, or how they affect the collider. This leaves critical input semantics undefined.

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 'Attach cc.ConeCollider' states a verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.ConeCollider'), but is vague about what it actually does—it doesn't specify that this adds a 3D cone-shaped collision component to a node in a Cocos Creator scene. While it distinguishes from siblings by naming 'ConeCollider', it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding, making it borderline tautological with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid scene and node), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like other collider types (e.g., box_collider_3d, sphere_collider_3d). This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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