cocos_get_sprite_frame_uuid

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 sub-uuid, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance considerations, or dependencies. The description is minimal and lacks context on what 'sprite-frame sub-uuid' means or how it's used, leaving 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the action and output. Every part of the sentence serves a clear function, 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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on the tool's role within the sibling set (e.g., how it relates to other 'get' or asset management tools) and does not fully explain the parameter or output meaning. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps in completeness for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The description mentions 'PNG meta' but does not explain what 'meta_path' is, its format, or examples. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's title ('Meta Path'), failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. A baseline of 3 is not met due to insufficient parameter clarification.

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's purpose: 'Return the `<uuid>@f9941` sprite-frame sub-uuid for a PNG meta.' It specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('sprite-frame sub-uuid'), and input ('PNG meta'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all 'cocos_' prefixed but serve various purposes (e.g., adding components, building, managing nodes).

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. It mentions a 'PNG meta' but does not clarify what that is, when this operation is needed, or what other tools might be relevant (e.g., sibling tools like 'cocos_get_object' or 'cocos_list_assets'). There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage information.

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