unity_ui_scene_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behaviors such as creating/reusing objects, instantiating panels, attaching scripts, activating only initialPanel, and saving the scene. However, it does not explicitly state whether it overwrites existing objects or if the operation is reversible. Overall, it provides moderate transparency.

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 paragraph that efficiently summarizes the tool's actions without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and each sentence provides specific detail. Minor improvement could be splitting into summary and details, but it remains concise.

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 (9 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: scene setup, panel instantiation, optional script attachment, and scene saving. It does not explain return values or all parameters in depth, but it provides a solid overview. Completeness is above average.

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 67%. The description does not add meaning beyond parameter names; it only lists actions. Some parameters (mode, bridgeUrl, editorPath) lack descriptions in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the gaps, so score is baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Set up and validate a Unity scene for generated UI through the live editor bridge.' It lists specific actions (creates/reuses Canvas, EventSystem, instantiates panels, attaches MenuManager, assigns fields, activates only initialPanel, saves scene), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_validate.

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 specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context like 'use after generating UI' or 'use instead of X'. Sibling tools include many UI-related actions, but no guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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