cocos_add_tiled_map_asset

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 value structure ({tmx_uuid, tsx_files, textures, dir}), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool that likely modifies project assets.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and workflow but misses parameter explanations, behavioral details, and output specifics beyond a brief mention. It's minimally adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It does not explain any parameters (e.g., what 'project_path' or 'rel_dir' mean), their formats, or constraints. The mention of file types (.tmx, .tsx, PNGs) hints at 'tmx_path' and 'texture_paths' but lacks specifics, failing to adequately supplement the 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 specific action ('Import TiledMap assets') and resources ('.tmx + .tsx tilesets + tileset PNGs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_tiled_map' which appears to use the imported assets. It explicitly mentions the file types involved, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Use tmx_uuid with cocos_add_tiled_map()', indicating when to use this tool (for importing assets) versus its sibling (for adding the map). It clearly defines the workflow, helping the agent understand the sequence of operations.

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