cocos_add_tiled_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Attach' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the layer already exists, whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'usually auto-created by TiledMap' adds some context but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential action ('Attach cc.TiledLayer'). Every word earns its place.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage context. The output schema existence means return values are covered, but other gaps remain significant.

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 for three undocumented parameters. It provides no information about what 'scene_path', 'node_id', or 'layer_name' represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to attaching a TiledLayer. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the bare schema.

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.TiledLayer'), and provides context about its typical creation source ('usually auto-created by TiledMap'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_tiled_map' by focusing on layer attachment rather than map creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'add' tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions TiledMap as the typical source but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other tools (like 'cocos_add_tiled_map' or general 'cocos_add_component') would be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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