cocos_create_scene

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 key behaviors: it creates a new scene with specific components (Canvas, UICamera, etc.), sets the camera's clearColor for a sky-blue background, and returns canonical IDs for use in subsequent tool calls. It covers creation, output format, and usage of IDs, though it could mention potential side effects like file system changes or scene overwriting.

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 well-structured and concise, with three paragraphs that efficiently cover creation details, visual behavior, and return values. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second explains the background color setup, and the third details the returned IDs and their usage. There is no redundant or wasted 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool creates, the visual outcome, and the structure of returned IDs for downstream use. However, it could improve by addressing parameter meanings or potential errors, but it covers core functionality adequately for a creation tool without structured support.

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 does not explicitly describe any of the 7 parameters, but it implies context for 'clear_color' parameters by mentioning the camera's clearColor is set to sky-blue. However, it lacks details on other parameters like 'project_path' or 'scene_name'. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap, warranting a score above baseline due to implied parameter relevance.

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: 'Create a minimal empty 2D scene + meta in assets/scenes/'. It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('2D scene'), and scope ('minimal empty'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cocos_create_node' or 'cocos_create_prefab' which create different resources. The mention of included components (Canvas, UICamera, etc.) further clarifies what constitutes the scene.

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 implies usage context by stating it creates a 'minimal empty 2D scene', suggesting it's for initial scene setup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cocos_create_node' for individual nodes or 'cocos_create_prefab' for reusable templates), and does not mention prerequisites like requiring a valid project path. The context is clear but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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