cocos_make_fullscreen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's effect (attaches Widget component, makes node fill parent) and return value (Widget component id), but doesn't mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. The description is adequate but lacks depth about mutation behavior or constraints.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage examples and technical context. Every sentence adds value: the second provides concrete use cases, the third gives technical background, and the fourth states the return value. Zero wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (layout operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description does well on purpose and usage but lacks parameter details. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description's mention of returning 'Widget component id' is sufficient but not essential.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about what 'scene_path' or 'node_id' represent, their formats, or valid values. The description adds zero parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('Attach cc.Widget'), the resource ('node'), and the effect ('stretches to fill its parent'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on fullscreen layout behavior, unlike other tools that add components or handle events.

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 clear context for when to use ('Use for backgrounds, modal backdrops, full-bleed panels') and mentions a technical alternative ('Replaces the ``align_flags=15`` incantation'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific sibling alternatives for different layout needs.

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