cocos_add_spring_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 the tool attaches a spring joint, with no information on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing nodes, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits), error conditions, or what the output schema returns. This is inadequate for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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—a single sentence that packs the action, component, functional note, and examples without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Attach cc.SpringJoint2D'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which the description doesn't leverage), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond a vague purpose.

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 none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their purposes, or how they interact (e.g., explaining 'anchor_x' vs 'connected_anchor_x' or the effect of 'frequency' and 'damping_ratio'). This leaves all parameters undocumented beyond their titles and types.

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 action ('Attach') and the specific component ('cc.SpringJoint2D'), with a brief functional note ('soft springy distance') and example use cases ('suspensions, ropes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_distance_joint2d' by specifying the spring type, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other joint tools like 'cocos_add_fixed_joint_2d' or 'cocos_add_wheel_joint2d'.

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 minimal usage context through the examples ('suspensions, ropes'), which implies scenarios involving flexible connections. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other joint types), prerequisites (e.g., requiring physics bodies), or any 'when-not' conditions. No alternative tools are named.

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