cocos_add_cylinder_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 does not state whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'add'), what permissions are needed, if it modifies the scene permanently, or what the output schema contains. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 phrase 'Attach cc.CylinderCollider', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide necessary context or structure, making it inefficient for guiding tool selection. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimalism sacrifices clarity.

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, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, lacks usage guidelines, omits behavioral context, and provides no parameter semantics. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to cover basic aspects needed for effective tool use, such as when and how to apply it in a Cocos Creator context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles (e.g., 'Scene Path', 'Node Id') are the only documentation. The description adds no semantic information about parameters, such as explaining what 'direction' (an integer) controls, what units 'radius' and 'height' use, or how 'center_x', 'center_y', 'center_z' relate to the node. With 9 parameters, this lack of detail is inadequate.

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.CylinderCollider' restates the tool name 'cocos_add_cylinder_collider_3d' without adding specificity. It uses a vague verb 'Attach' instead of clarifying what 'add' means in this context (e.g., creating and configuring a collider component). No differentiation from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' is provided, making it a tautological restatement of the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a 3D node), context (e.g., for physics simulations), or exclusions (e.g., not for 2D scenes). With many sibling tools for adding colliders and components, the lack of any usage context is a significant gap.

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