cocos_add_page_view_indicator

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 discloses key behavioral traits: the tool attaches a component, auto-spawns indicator sprites, and has a default direction. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing nodes), rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary details without waste, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, basic usage, and key parameters, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or output format, though the output schema may mitigate this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains 'sprite_frame_uuid' as a template for sprites and 'direction' values (0=HORIZONTAL, 1=VERTICAL), covering 2 of 7 parameters. It does not address 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'cell_width', 'cell_height', or 'spacing', but provides enough context for core functionality.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Attach cc.PageViewIndicator') and resource ('dots row that tracks PageView position'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cocos_add_page_view' (which creates the PageView itself) and other UI components. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Attach to a child of the PageView node'), implying it should be used after creating a PageView. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as other indicator or navigation components.

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