cocos_add_particle_system_2d

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 mentions configurable aspects but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it 'attaches'), what permissions or prerequisites are needed, if it has side effects (e.g., modifying scene state), or the response format. For a tool with 26 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action and key configurable areas. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 high complexity (26 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%) and the presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is insufficient. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter explanations, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation. The output schema may help with returns, but the description doesn't guide the agent on how or when to use the tool.

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%, meaning none of the 26 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only vaguely references 'configurable emission, color, physics' without explaining any specific parameters (e.g., what 'emission_rate' or 'gravity_x' do). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 the resource ('cc.ParticleSystem2D'), specifying its configurable aspects (emission, color, physics). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cocos_add_animation' or 'cocos_add_sprite' by focusing on particle systems, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools (e.g., if there were a 'cocos_add_particle_system_3d').

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid scene or node), typical use cases (e.g., visual effects), or exclusions (e.g., not for 3D scenes). With many sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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