cocos_add_slider_joint2d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Attach cc.SliderJoint2D') without mentioning critical behaviors such as whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it adds a component), permission requirements, side effects, error conditions, or how it interacts with the physics engine. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's operational impact.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and provides an example. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 high complexity (15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to address the tool's behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional guesswork or external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are explained in the schema. The description adds no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It does not clarify the purpose of key parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or the various anchor and motor settings, leaving them entirely 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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.SliderJoint2D'), and provides a specific example of its use ('translates along an axis (elevators, pistons)'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_distance_joint2d' or 'cocos_add_hinge_joint2d', which likely serve different physics joint purposes.

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 a general context ('translates along an axis') and examples ('elevators, pistons'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other joint types in the sibling list), prerequisites, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios. It implies usage for linear motion but offers no further direction.

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