cocos_stack_vertically

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 mentions the tool returns a Layout component id, which is useful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this creates a new node or modifies an existing one, what permissions or scene state are required, if it's idempotent, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by bullet-like explanations of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to scan 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 has 5 parameters (2 required, 3 optional) with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the optional parameters well and mentions the return value, but omits semantics for the required parameters and lacks behavioral context needed for a mutation tool in a UI framework.

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. It effectively explains three optional parameters (spacing, padding, align) with details on accepted values (design-token names or raw pixels for spacing/padding, alignment options). However, it doesn't cover the two required parameters (scene_path, node_id), leaving their purpose and format undocumented.

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 creates a vertical layout component ('cc.Layout type=VERTICAL — children arrange top-to-bottom'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cocos_stack_horizontally' by specifying vertical arrangement, though it doesn't explicitly mention other layout-related siblings like 'cocos_add_layout'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a scene and node), compare with 'cocos_add_layout' or other layout tools, or specify typical use cases for vertical stacking in UI design.

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