cocos_get_project_info

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 'Read' implying a read-only operation, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity (reading multiple project aspects), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned, how assets/scenes/scripts are listed, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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. It does not mention the 'project_path' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context reduces it to 3, as the description does not clarify what the path represents or its format.

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 ('Read') and resources ('package.json + list assets / scenes / scripts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cocos_list_assets' or 'cocos_list_scene_nodes' by combining multiple read operations into one tool, though it could be more explicit about this differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on specific operations (e.g., 'cocos_list_assets'), the description does not clarify if this is a comprehensive overview tool or when it might be preferred over more targeted tools.

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