cocos_assets_organize_planPlan asset reorganization by type, leveraging existing folders, and provide source/target paths, UUIDs, conflicts, and skip reasons for review before moving assets.
按资源类型规划整理，优先已有目录；返回源/目标、UUID、冲突与跳过原因。默认仅 assets 根目录，agent 审查路径引用后再执行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | No | ||
| scopeUrl | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| instanceId | No | ||
| operationId | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No | ||
| runtimeInstanceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns a plan (not execution), specifies the fields returned (source/target, UUID, conflicts, skip reasons), and clarifies the default scope. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does and its non-destructive nature.
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, compact structure with the main purpose front-loaded and additional behavioral notes appended. It avoids redundancy and communicates the key message efficiently, though it could be slightly more structured with direct parameter hints.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description carries the entire burden. It mentions return fields and default scope but does not explain parameter semantics, edge cases, or exact response structure. For an 8-parameter tool, this is insufficient for confident correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 8 parameters. It only hints at default scope without connecting it to specific parameters like scopeUrl or recursive. This is a severe gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate values.
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 plans resource organization by asset type, returns source/target, UUID, conflicts and skip reasons, and is a preview before execution. It implicitly distinguishes from the apply sibling by emphasizing review before execution, though it doesn't name the apply tool explicitly.
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 mentions default scope (assets root) and that the agent should review path references before executing, implying a planning step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus cocos_assets_organize_apply or how it fits into the workflow, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.