cocos_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a headless build operation, applies post-build patches automatically (unless disabled), returns detailed results including exit codes and logs, and notes performance characteristics (first build is slow, subsequent builds faster with `clean_temp=False`). It does not cover error handling or permissions in depth, but provides substantial context.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured, with clear sections for platforms, flags, parameter behavior, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some sentences could be slightly tightened (e.g., the note on `None` defaults is verbose), but overall it earns its place with useful information.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output structure. It could benefit from more explicit error handling details or prerequisites, but covers most critical aspects for a build tool.

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. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains common platforms, details the purpose of boolean flags (e.g., `source_maps` for stack traces), clarifies that `None` uses defaults, describes how `build_options` works for unspecified flags, and explains the effect of `apply_patches`. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Headlessly build the project via `CocosCreator --build`.' It specifies the verb ('build') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are mostly about adding components, managing scenes, or previewing) by focusing on the build process.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., for building projects to various platforms, with release flags and post-build patches). It mentions an alternative for unspecified flags ('use `build_options`'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to other build-related siblings (none are listed).

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