unity_ui_preflight

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

The description states it is 'read-only', which is good for non-destructive behavior. It lists the report's contents, providing transparency about what the tool does. However, it does not disclose potential costs, permissions needed, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does a decent job.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for an agent.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of the report contents. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or how the report should be used. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 50%, but the tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain 'feature', 'specPath', 'bridgeUrl', or other parameters, leaving agents without guidance on how to use them correctly.

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 tool returns a read-only readiness report for Unity UI generation, listing specific contents like style approval, recipe selection, validation blockers, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_style_discover or unity_ui_validate which focus on individual aspects.

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 it should be used before generation to check readiness, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like unity_ui_scene_preflight or other validation tools. No exclusions or best practices are provided.

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