cocos_add_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'align_flags is a bitmask', which adds some context about parameter behavior, but fails to describe critical traits such as whether this operation modifies the scene (mutative), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with existing widgets. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely alters UI layout.

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 action, consisting of two concise sentences. There is no wasted text, but it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases. Overall, it is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral implications, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool effectively in a complex Cocos environment.

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 only explains 'align_flags' as a bitmask, ignoring 'scene_path', 'node_id', and 'target_id'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify the purpose or format of the other three parameters, which are essential for correct usage.

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 states the action ('Attach') and resource ('cc.Widget for screen-anchor layout'), which clarifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'attach' entails in this context (e.g., to a node or scene) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_uitransform' or 'cocos_add_component', which might handle similar UI/layout tasks, making it vague in comparison.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'screen-anchor layout', but it does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for different layout needs, leaving the agent without context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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