读取节点及组件属性

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

The read-only nature is already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the scene must be open, whether it reads runtime or saved state, or what the return value contains. It merely restates the operation.

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, lean sentence with no fluff or repetition beyond the title. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it offers no structural depth; the brevity is a plus for conciseness but not for completeness.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested params object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It omits what the query returns, how the optional identifiers are used, and any preconditions, leaving an agent to rely on guesswork.

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, but it only implies the meaning of nodeId via the noun 'node'. Optional parameters like instanceId, operationId, expectedRevision, and runtimeInstanceId are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent with significant ambiguity on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as cocos_scene_query, cocos_asset_query, or cocos_capability_describe. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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