cocos_add_webview

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 webview already exists, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'ToS / activity pages' adds minimal context but leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines that would help an agent understand this mutation tool fully.

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 undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the three parameters (scene_path, node_id, url) beyond what the schema's titles indicate. The default URL 'https://cocos.com' is only visible in the schema, not mentioned in the description.

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.WebView'), specifying it's an embedded browser pane for ToS/activity pages. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on webview attachment rather than other UI components like buttons or labels, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'embedded browser pane for ToS / activity pages' which hints at a use case, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when other web-related tools might be more appropriate.

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