cocos_add_sphere_collider_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attach' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether it modifies existing colliders, error conditions, or the impact on the scene. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence: 'Attach cc.SphereCollider (3D sphere shape).' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse, 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 complexity of a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's effects, parameter meanings, or usage context. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description fails to provide the necessary completeness for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'radius', or 'is_trigger', failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Attach cc.SphereCollider (3D sphere shape)' states the action (attach) and resource (SphereCollider) with a clarifying note about its 3D sphere shape, which is clear but basic. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' or 'cocos_add_capsule_collider_3d', which serve similar purposes for different collider types, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other collider types (e.g., box, capsule) or related tools like 'cocos_add_physics_body2d'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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