cocos_get_object

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 states the tool returns a raw JSON dict, which is useful, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or data format details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a contextual note. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, error conditions, and operational constraints, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation in a complex environment like Cocos.

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 description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'scene_path' and 'object_id' represent, their formats, or examples. This results in inadequate parameter guidance.

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 ('Return') and resource ('raw JSON dict of a scene object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_get_object_count' or 'cocos_list_scene_nodes', which also retrieve scene information, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 includes the context 'for debugging/inspection', which implies when to use this tool—for internal inspection rather than production operations. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use other getter tools, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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