cocos_add_page_view

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 mentions the tool attaches a PageView component but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies existing nodes, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what the output contains. 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 with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and clarify one parameter. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the core 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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters, lacks behavioral context, and provides no usage guidelines, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 only explains the 'direction' parameter (0=H, 1=V), leaving the other 5 parameters (scene_path, node_id, content_id, scroll_threshold, page_turning_speed) undocumented. This partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Attach cc.PageView') and resource ('swipeable pages'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying a unique UI component (PageView), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'cocos_add_scroll_view'.

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, such as 'cocos_add_scroll_view' or 'cocos_add_page_view_indicator'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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