cocos_add_graphics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is for 'runtime vector drawing' which hints at a dynamic, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, or what the output schema might contain. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation implications.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but zero annotation coverage and low schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context that would be needed for full understanding.

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 mentions 'node' and 'cc.Graphics' but doesn't explain what 'scene_path' or 'node_id' mean, their formats, or how they relate to the attachment process. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 ('a cc.Graphics to a node'), with additional context about its use ('for runtime vector drawing'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the graphics component, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar attachment tools like 'cocos_add_component'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'runtime vector drawing' which implies a context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions compared to the many sibling tools.

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