cocos_new_uuid

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 describes the output format and typical use cases, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether the UUID is globally unique, if there are any rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. The description does not contradict any annotations, but could provide more context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and usage. Every sentence adds value without any waste, making it easy for an AI agent to 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and its typical use, but could benefit from mentioning that it returns a UUID string (implied by the output schema) or any constraints. However, it adequately covers the core functionality for a straightforward generation tool.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('fresh standard UUID4'), specifying the exact format ('36-char dashed lowercase hex'). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating its specific use case ('main UUID for new scripts, scenes, prefabs, and images'), unlike other tools that perform various creation or manipulation tasks.

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 this tool ('Used as the main UUID for new scripts, scenes, prefabs, and images'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'cocos_compress_uuid' or 'cocos_decompress_uuid'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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