Build Cocos WeChat Game

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, error behavior, or duration. For a build tool that likely mutates output, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the action and target platform. It is concise, though the phrase 'command-line build' is slightly redundant given 'Run Cocos Creator'.

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 complexity of a build tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, required parameters (beyond projectRoot), or build behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 low (43%), and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Parameters like dryRun, timeoutMs, creatorPath lack explanations, and the description only mentions configPath and buildOptions without clarifying their roles or syntax.

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 action (run build), target platform (wechatgame), and methods (configPath or raw options). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cocos_local_check_wechat_build_output and cocos_local_create_wechat_build_config.

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 implies when to use this tool (for building the wechatgame platform), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose configPath vs raw buildOptions, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives among sibling tools.

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