cocos_add_filled_sprite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent lines provide essential parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%), the description is incomplete. It explains only 2 parameters and lacks behavioral context, prerequisites, or error handling. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address the tool's overall role or integration, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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. It explains two parameters ('fill_type' and 'fill_range') with clear semantics and examples, covering 2 out of 12 parameters. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though it leaves most parameters undocumented. The baseline would be lower without this, so it scores above average for effort.

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 cc.Sprite with type=FILLED') and the resource (a sprite component), with specific examples of use cases ('cooldown timer, radial progress'). It distinguishes itself from generic sprite tools by specifying the FILLED type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_sprite' or 'cocos_add_progress_bar'.

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 mentions example use cases but does not specify prerequisites, dependencies, or when to choose this over other sprite or UI tools in the sibling list, such as 'cocos_add_progress_bar' or 'cocos_add_sprite'.

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