cocos_add_pulse

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 effectively describes key traits: the animation loops forever ('Clip loops forever — attach and forget'), which is crucial for understanding its persistent nature. It also mentions the return values ('Returns {clip_uuid, clip_path, anim_component_id}'), aiding in post-invocation handling. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the next two explain key parameters with practical advice, and the final two cover behavioral aspects and return values. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, key parameter semantics, behavioral traits (looping forever), and return values. It effectively compensates for the lack of structured data. However, it does not explain the three undocumented parameters ('scene_path', 'node_id', 'rel_dir'), which are required or have defaults, leaving some gaps in full contextual understanding.

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?

Given a schema description coverage of 0%, the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantic information for two parameters ('strength' and 'period'), including default values, acceptable ranges, and design guidelines (e.g., 'Keep subtle; above ~0.15 looks anxious'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists titles and types without explanations. The description does not cover 'scene_path', 'node_id', or 'rel_dir', but the high value added for the documented parameters justifies a top score.

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: 'Looping subtle scale pulse — attention-grabber for idle UI.' It specifies the verb ('add pulse'), resource (UI element), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on a subtle animation effect rather than other UI components or animations listed in the sibling tools.

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 for when to use the tool: 'attention-grabber for idle UI.' It implies usage for subtle visual feedback in inactive interfaces. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as other animation tools like 'cocos_add_animation' or 'cocos_add_shake.'

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