cocos_list_creator_installs

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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), returns structured data (list of dicts with specific fields), and specifies platform-specific search paths. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or whether it requires Cocos Dashboard to be installed.

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 perfectly front-loaded and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes the return format, and the third specifies search paths. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it highly efficient 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 that this is a simple read-only tool with zero parameters and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return format, and platform-specific behavior. No annotations are needed for this straightforward operation, and the description provides all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 ('List') and resource ('every locally installed Cocos Creator version'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are all about adding components, creating assets, or modifying projects) by focusing on system-level discovery of installed software versions.

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 implies usage when you need to discover installed Cocos Creator versions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other tools in the sibling list. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage directives.

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