cocos_list_post_build_patches

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 implies a read-only operation by using 'Return', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or if it's safe for concurrent use. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return format, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain the required 'project_path' input. This leaves the parameter undocumented and adds no semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('all registered post-build patches with their indices'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cocos_register_post_build_patch' and 'cocos_remove_post_build_patches' by focusing on listing rather than modifying, though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 other listing tools like 'cocos_list_assets' or 'cocos_list_scene_nodes', or how it relates to patch-related siblings. It lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios for listing post-build patches.

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