cocos_add_rigidbody2d

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 the 'body_type' parameter with enum values, which hints at behavior (static, kinematic, dynamic), but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies scene state.

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 very concise with a single sentence, front-loading the core action and providing key parameter info. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details).

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details for most parameters. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not adequately prepare an agent for correct invocation in a physics system context.

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 only explains the 'body_type' parameter with enum values, ignoring the other 8 parameters (e.g., 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'gravity_scale'). This minimal coverage fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, 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 action ('Attach') and the resource ('cc.RigidBody2D'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'cocos_add_physics_body2d' by focusing on a specific 2D physics component, but does not explicitly differentiate from all similar tools (e.g., 'cocos_add_rigidbody_3d'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 physics-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'cocos_add_rigidbody_3d' for 3D). It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.

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