Create Cocos Scene From Template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Create... from templates'. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether existing files are overwritten (despite an 'overwrite' parameter), required permissions, or side effects. The tool's impact on the project or the environment (e.g., editor running) is omitted.

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, making it concise, but it lacks structure and front-loading of important constraints. Every word earns its place, but the brevity sacrifices informativeness. A slightly expanded description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., project existence, editor state). Users are left guessing about outcomes and valid usage contexts.

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 must add meaning beyond the schema. However, it only contextualizes the 'template' parameter by mentioning 'built-in default scene templates'. Other critical parameters like 'sceneName', 'scenePath', 'overwrite', 'creatorPath', and 'projectRoot' are not explained. Defaults are not mentioned in the description, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Create' and the resource 'Cocos Creator scene asset from local Creator 3.8 built-in default scene templates'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'cocos_local_create_project' or 'cocos_local_create_component_script' by specifying the origin and type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool might be preferable, such as creating scenes from custom templates or using the editor directly.

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