cocos_add_progress_bar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'mode' parameter with enum-like values (0=HORIZONTAL, etc.), which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read or write operation (likely a mutation, but unspecified), what happens to existing components on the node, error conditions, or the output format (though an output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero 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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding specific value.

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 complexity (7 parameters, likely a mutation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the 'mode' parameter but omits details on others, behavioral traits, and usage context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall, the description does not provide enough information for safe and effective use, scoring as 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 adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter by explaining its enum values (0=HORIZONTAL, 1=VERTICAL, 2=FILLED), which is valuable beyond the schema's generic integer type. However, it ignores the other 6 parameters (e.g., 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'bar_sprite_id'), leaving them undocumented. This partial coverage results in a baseline score of 3, as it provides some but insufficient semantic clarity.

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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.ProgressBar'), specifying the action of adding a progress bar component to a Cocos Creator scene. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on progress bars, unlike tools for buttons, labels, or other UI elements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'cocos_add_hud_bar' or 'cocos_add_slider', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other UI components or sibling tools like 'cocos_add_hud_bar'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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