cocos_list_scene_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns, not behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, safe, has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. 'List' implies a read operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, and no additional context (e.g., permissions, performance) is given.

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 that front-loads the core action ('List every cc.Node in the scene') and details the returned fields. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse 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 tool's complexity (listing nodes in a scene), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, with only one parameter ('scene_path'), the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't explain what 'scene_path' means (e.g., format, examples, or constraints), so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap, warranting a 3.

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 cc.Node in the scene'), specifying what information is returned (id, name, parent, components, children). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing scene nodes rather than adding/modifying them, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 like 'cocos_find_node_by_name' or 'cocos_get_object'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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