Call Cocos Editor Bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavior: it mentions the bridge must be enabled but omits important traits such as HTTP request nature, error handling, return values, or potential destructive effects. The tool's behavior as a network call is only inferred from parameter names.

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 directly states the action. It is concise and front-loaded, though the precondition 'after it is enabled' could be clarified or placed separately.

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 5 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to construct calls, what the body should contain, or what responses are expected, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 (20%) and the description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter (a generic object) is unexplained, and the purposes of port, method, and timeout are left to defaults without context.

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 identifies the tool as a means to call the localhost HTTP bridge of the Cocos editor extension, using a verb+resource format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a generic caller, but could be more precise about its role as an HTTP client for arbitrary endpoints.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cocos_local_check_editor_bridge, cocos_local_assign_sprite_frame). The description implies usage for custom calls but does not explicitly state context or alternatives.

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