cocos_set_design_resolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't clarify what 'design resolution' affects, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to existing settings. The fit mode explanation adds some context but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence efficiently explains the fit mode combinations. There's no wasted text, though the fit mode explanation could be slightly clearer. The structure is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the basic purpose and fit modes but doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications, error handling, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (1 required), the description provides minimal parameter information. It mentions fit_width and fit_height with their interaction modes, but doesn't explain project_path, width, height, or the practical meaning of these parameters. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set design resolution for multi-screen adaptation.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('design resolution') with a clear context ('multi-screen adaptation'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which all appear to be Cocos-related operations but have different functions.

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. It mentions fit modes (SHOW_ALL, FIT_WIDTH, FIT_HEIGHT) but doesn't explain when to choose one over another or reference any sibling tools as alternatives. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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