cocos_audit_scene_modules

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it walks up from the scene file to find package.json if project_path is not provided, and returns a structured result with fields like 'ok', 'required', 'enabled', 'disabled', and 'actions'. It also explains what happens when ok=False (actions list next steps). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or side effects like file system access.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, explains the problem it solves, provides parameter usage notes, and describes the return value—all in a compact format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (validating engine modules against scene components) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. It could be more complete by detailing error cases or performance considerations, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description compensates well. It explains the semantics of 'project_path' (defaults to null, walks up from scene file, use when scene is outside project) and implies 'scene_path' is required for the audit. While it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints, it adds meaningful context beyond 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 tool's purpose: 'Cross-check scene components against the project's engine.json' to catch a specific runtime failure scenario. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on module validation rather than scene creation, component addition, or other operations listed in the sibling 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for detecting 'build succeeded, game broken at runtime' failures due to disabled engine modules. It also specifies when to pass the project_path parameter (when the scene is outside the project) and mentions an alternative tool ('cocos_set_engine_module') for remediation, giving clear context for usage.

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