cocos_find_node_by_name

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 the return behavior ('Returns its array index, or None'), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the scene_path is invalid), performance implications, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive 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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary details or fluff are present.

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 that there is an output schema (which should detail the return structure), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description could provide more context on parameter usage and behavioral traits. It is mostly complete but lacks depth in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'scene_path' and 'name' beyond what their titles imply. It mentions 'given name' which hints at the 'name' parameter, but does not explain what 'scene_path' is or the format expected. Baseline is 3 due to 0% coverage, but the description does not compensate adequately.

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 ('Find the first node'), target resource ('with the given name'), and outcome ('Returns its array index, or None'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cocos_list_scene_nodes' (which lists all nodes) by focusing on finding a specific node by name.

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 when you need to locate a node by name in a scene, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cocos_get_object' or 'cocos_list_scene_nodes'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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