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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether preflight mutates state, what it inspects, what it returns, or any permissions/rate limits. The '(command)' tag and the aliases are the only content, and neither describes behavior. The dry-run-by-default semantics live in the schema, not here.

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 single line is terse and front-loaded with no filler, and the aliases do aid retrieval among ~100 sibling tools. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it is efficient but not substantive.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state what preflight checks or produces. It supplies platform and aliases only, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose entirely from the name and schema.

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 100% — both 'execute' (dry-run default) and 'projectRoot' (path default) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 only restates the tool name ("unity::env.preflight") plus a platform label and aliases; it never explains what a preflight check actually does or what it validates. An agent cannot tell from this text what 'env.preflight' accomplishes beyond the vague implication of pre-run environment checking. This is essentially a tautological restatement of the identifier.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings like unity::runtime.diagnose, unity::sdk.recommend, or unity::app.scaffold. The platform prefix is the only routing signal, and it is inherited from the name rather than explained.

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