cocos_compress_uuid

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 describes the transformation behavior (36-char to 23-char) and provides an example, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid UUID format), performance implications, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 low complexity (one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or linking to 'cocos_decompress_uuid' for reverse operations, leaving minor 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%, but the description compensates well. It explains that the 'uuid' parameter is a 36-character UUID and provides an example ('5372d6f5-721e-43f6-b004-d30da1c8a9a0'), clarifying the expected format. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail validation rules or edge cases.

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 specific action ('Compress a 36-char UUID to Cocos Creator's 23-char short form') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique use case for custom TS script classes in scene/prefab JSON. It provides a concrete example showing the transformation, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from other 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Required when referencing a custom TS script class as a component `__type__` in a scene/prefab JSON.' This provides clear context for its application, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cocos_decompress_uuid' and other UUID-related operations by specifying the exact scenario where compression is needed.

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