cocos_get_object_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a count, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling, performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema (which likely defines the return value), the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a single parameter, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple counting tool. It could benefit from more context on usage or behavior to be fully complete.

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 description does not mention the 'scene_path' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema (which lacks descriptions), it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, warranting a score of 3.

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 ('total number of objects in the scene/prefab JSON array'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_list_scene_nodes' or 'cocos_get_object', which might also involve counting or listing objects, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'cocos_list_scene_nodes' for listing objects or other counting methods. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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