将当前场景与基线快照进行结构化差异比较

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain what a 'structured difference' returns, whether a baseline snapshot must already exist, or how the comparison is performed, missing an opportunity to add value beyond the structured hints.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant words, so it is efficient and front-loaded with the core operation. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of omitting necessary details, making it short but not fully effective.

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 six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to describe return values, prerequisite states, or the meaning of parameters beyond a vague mention of 'baseline', making it difficult for an agent to call correctly.

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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions 'baseline snapshot' as a concept, but does not specify the required format or type for the 'baseline' parameter (e.g., a snapshot ID), nor does it clarify the roles of the other six parameters.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cocos_scene_query or cocos_scene_snapshot. The agent must infer the intended use case solely from the operation name and the minimal description, leaving ambiguity about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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