cocos_add_plane_collider_3d

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 states the tool 'Attach[es]' a component, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it modifies existing colliders, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'infinite plane' adds some context, but overall, it lacks critical behavioral details 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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and typical use, and the second explains default values. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation tool) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and some parameter defaults but lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details for most parameters. The presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true') reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it's minimally adequate with clear gaps.

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 the default normal (0,1,0) and constant 0, clarifying the XZ plane at y=0, which adds meaning for 'normal_x', 'normal_y', 'normal_z', and 'constant'. However, it doesn't address the other 6 parameters (scene_path, node_id, center_x/y/z, is_trigger), leaving most semantics undocumented.

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: 'Attach cc.PlaneCollider — infinite plane, typically used for the ground.' It specifies the verb ('Attach'), resource ('cc.PlaneCollider'), and typical use case ('ground'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' or 'cocos_add_sphere_collider_3d', which would require a 5.

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 minimal guidance: 'typically used for the ground.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternative colliders (e.g., box, sphere, mesh), mention prerequisites, or outline exclusions. Without explicit alternatives or context, it offers little usage direction.

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