cocos_list_assets

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 discloses the return structure and some behavioral details (grouping by type, minimum fields, conditional 'sprite_frame_uuid' for images). However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. The description adds useful context but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details about the return structure. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured. Overall, it's efficient and clear.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format in detail, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it misses parameter semantics and some behavioral aspects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. The tool description doesn't mention the 'project_path' parameter at all, providing no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema's title suggests. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline remains at 3 as the impact is limited.

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: 'List all assets in the project grouped by type, with their UUIDs.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('assets'), and scope ('in the project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily 'add' operations rather than listing operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from other listing tools like 'cocos_list_scene_nodes' or 'cocos_list_tools' that might serve similar inventory purposes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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