Inspect Cocos Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a non-destructive inspection but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what happens on success/failure, or what exactly is checked. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be structured with more details (e.g., bullet points) 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of missing files, boolean status) or how to interpret the result. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for effective use.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'projectRoot' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a Cocos Creator project root'. It states the tool's purpose: checking for files and folders needed before local preview or wechatgame build. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like building or opening.

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 indicates the tool should be used 'before local preview or wechatgame build', providing clear context for its usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other times or mention alternatives, but its purpose is unique among siblings.

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