cocos_add_richtext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions HTML tag support and size_preset behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this is a creation or modification operation, what permissions are needed, if it's destructive, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose with tag examples, and the second explains size_preset behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more 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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains size_preset well but ignores other parameters and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage it to explain return values or overall completeness.

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 size_preset values and their effect on font_size and line_height, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't address other parameters like scene_path, node_id, or horizontal_align, leaving most parameters 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 attaches a cc.RichText component with specific HTML tag support, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_label' or 'cocos_add_styled_text_block' that might handle text differently.

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 like 'cocos_add_label' or 'cocos_add_styled_text_block' from the sibling list. It mentions size_preset overriding font_size, but this is parameter semantics rather than usage context.

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