cocos_add_slider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is a read or write operation, what effects it has (e.g., modifies scene, requires permissions), or any constraints like rate limits. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 with two brief phrases, front-loading the main action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in detail, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context. The output schema might help with return values, but the description fails to provide essential information for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'slide_events' and references another tool, but doesn't explain the semantics of any parameters (e.g., what 'scene_path' or 'direction' mean). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving most parameters unclear.

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 states the action ('Attach') and resource ('cc.Slider'), but it's vague about what 'attach' means in this context (e.g., adding a UI component to a node). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_button' or 'cocos_add_progress_bar', which also attach UI components, leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond the general category.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'slide_events: list from cocos_make_event_handler()' implies a prerequisite but doesn't clarify scenarios or exclusions. Without context on use cases or comparisons to siblings, the agent lacks direction for selection.

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