cocos_center_in_parent

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 that the tool 'Returns the Widget component id,' which is a behavioral detail, but lacks critical information such as whether this operation is destructive (modifies the widget in-place), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of parameters and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan 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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining two parameters and mentioning the return value. However, as a mutation tool (implied by 'Attach'), it lacks details on behavioral traits like destructiveness or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is only adequate with clear gaps.

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 explains the semantics of 'horizontal' and 'vertical' parameters with an example ('horizontal=False centers only vertically, and vice versa'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover 'scene_path' or 'node_id', leaving half of the parameters undocumented. The description adds value but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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.Widget with centering flags'), specifying the action of applying centering to a widget. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on centering rather than adding components or other operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'cocos_add_widget' or 'cocos_anchor_to_edge'.

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 minimal guidance: it explains the effect of setting horizontal/vertical flags but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of manual positioning or other layout tools, leaving usage context largely implied.

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