cocos_create_sprite_atlas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behaviors: it creates files (marker + meta), automatically packs PNGs at build time, copies PNGs if provided, and returns specific data including a reusable folder path. It mentions build-time integration but could elaborate more on error conditions or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details, parameter explanations, and return values. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it efficiently covers complex functionality in a compact format.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks explicit error handling or permission requirements, and the output schema absence means return value details are only partially covered in the description.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description compensates excellently by explaining the optional nature of 'png_paths', listing all tunable parameters with their defaults and purposes (max_width, padding, algorithm, etc.), and clarifying the role of 'rel_dir' through the default folder example. This adds substantial meaning 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 creates an AutoAtlas bundle for Cocos 3.8 build-time packing, specifying it generates a marker file and metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on sprite atlas creation rather than general asset addition or scene manipulation, with no tautology present.

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 on when to use the tool (for automatic sprite packing at build time) and mentions that PNGs can be added later without re-running the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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