Install Cocos Editor Bridge

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only mentions installation and bridge exposure. It omits side effects like file creation, overwrite behavior (despite overwrite parameter), permission requirements, or idempotency. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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, concise sentence of 21 words that front-loads the main action. While efficient, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for appropriate length but slight under-specification.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain return values, installation verification, required permissions, or effects on the project. Sister tools like check_editor_bridge could provide verification but are not mentioned.

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 description provides no explanation of parameters (port, overwrite, projectRoot, extensionName). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning beyond parameter names and default values. Users must infer semantics from names alone.

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 it installs a project-local Cocos Creator 3.x editor extension that exposes a localhost bridge for scene inspection and operations. The verb 'Install' and specific resource 'Cocos Creator 3.x editor extension' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like call, check, wait.

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 usage as a setup step before using bridge-related tools, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as when not to install or prerequisites. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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