检查缺失组件与无效对象引用

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'check' is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations—it does not explain what happens when issues are found, whether it returns a report, or any side effects. Since it does not contradict annotations and the read-only nature is covered, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it simply repeats the title verbatim, adding no new structure or detail. It earns a 4 for brevity but lacks any additional organizational value.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description gives no information about what inputs are expected, what the tool returns, or when to invoke it. For a validation tool that likely requires specific scene context and produces a report, this is severely incomplete.

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%—none of the six parameters (projectId, params, instanceId, operationId, expectedRevision, runtimeInstanceId) have descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of them either. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter semantics whatsoever.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like pre-build validation, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no context to decide between this and other cocos_scene_* tools.

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