Check Cocos Editor Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions checking file existence and optional ping, but does not explain what happens if files are missing, what the HTTP ping checks, or what the tool returns on success/failure.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing the two checks 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, error states, and how the tool fits into the workflow of using the editor bridge. The sibling tools indicate a workflow but the description does not acknowledge it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter. It only implies usage of projectRoot, port, and pingHttp, but omits extensionName entirely. The phrase 'optionally ping' hints at pingHttp, but no parameter details are given.

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 verb 'check' and the resource: existence of the Codex editor bridge extension files, with optional HTTP ping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cocos_local_install_editor_bridge' and 'cocos_local_call_editor_bridge'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used as a prerequisite check before calling or installing the bridge, nor does it suggest any conditions for omitting the ping.

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