search_unity_example_components

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

No annotations provided; description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, require authentication, or have rate limits. Adequate but could be more transparent about side effects.

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?

Two sentences: first states action and resource, second lists output fields and provides a usage hint. No redundant information, highly efficient.

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?

Lacks details on result ordering/pagination and doesn't explain how 'limit' parameter affects output. However, it clearly describes return structure (class name, URI, feature tags, public methods) and ties to sibling tool, making it mostly sufficient for a search tool.

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 coverage is 67% (feature and projectPath described, limit not). Description only mentions 'feature' implicitly but does not explain 'limit' (controls result count) or 'projectPath' (defines Unity project root). Fails to add value beyond schema for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Description clearly states it searches the bytewars C# source index for classes matching a feature and returns ranked metadata. It specifically mentions output fields and distinguishes from sibling describe_unity_example_components by directing usage of URIs.

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?

Provides a hint to use URIs with describe_unity_example_components, indicating a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like unity_ui_resolve or unity_ui_kit_inspect, lacking exclusion criteria.

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