cocos_add_safe_area

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 tool attaches a component and auto-fits nodes, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, if it's destructive to existing layouts, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Attach' specifies the action, 'cc.SafeArea' identifies the component, and 'Auto-fits node to device safe area (notch/cutout)' clarifies the purpose without redundancy.

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 has an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description's minimalism is partially excused. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two required parameters, the description is incomplete for safe usage. It covers the 'what' but misses the 'how' and operational context, making it barely adequate.

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 parameters 'scene_path' and 'node_id' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what a scene path is, how node IDs are obtained, or their formats. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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.SafeArea') with specific functionality ('Auto-fits node to device safe area (notch/cutout)'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on safe area attachment rather than adding components like scripts or animations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar UI adjustment tools in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node), exclusions, or compare it to other layout/adjustment tools in the extensive sibling list. Usage is implied through the action described but not explicitly stated.

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