cocos_add_spine_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return values ({skeleton_data_uuid, atlas_uuid, textures, dir}), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read/write operation, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), error conditions, or performance implications. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful return value and usage information. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage notes).

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and error handling. For a tool that likely involves file operations and integration with another tool ('cocos_add_spine'), more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (project_path, spine_json_path, atlas_path, texture_paths, rel_dir) beyond what the schema titles provide. The description mentions file types (.json, .atlas, textures) but doesn't clarify parameter roles or relationships, failing to add meaningful semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Import Spine skeleton assets (.json + .atlas + textures).' It specifies the verb ('Import') and resources (Spine skeleton assets with file types), making it distinct from most sibling tools that handle different asset types or operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cocos_add_spine' (a sibling tool), though it mentions using the output with that tool.

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 implies usage by stating 'Use skeleton_data_uuid with cocos_add_spine()', which suggests this tool prepares data for another tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other asset import tools) or any prerequisites. The context is somewhat clear but not comprehensive.

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