unity_ui_kit_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without modifying assets', indicating non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose other traits such as how results are returned, error handling, or required permissions.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core function but is minimal given no output schema and no annotations. It omits return values, error behavior, and relationship to other tools, though it is functional for a simple inspection 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 50% with only 'projectPath' described. The description adds no additional meaning to either parameter; 'kit' remains undescribed despite having a default. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action (inspect), resource (package-owned AGS uGUI kit prefabs), and context (against component specs, without modifying assets). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unity_ui_generate' (which creates) and 'unity_ui_validate' (which likely validates differently).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unity_ui_validate' or 'unity_ui_verify_backing_class'. It conveys the tool's purpose but lacks context for selection among similar siblings.

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