unity_ui_select_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a partial spec stub and warns about generic_async behavior. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires auth/permissions, leaving gaps in 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 two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, fulfilling conciseness and structure ideals.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on the return format, prerequisites (e.g., AGS setup), and how this tool differs from unity_ui_list_entry_candidates. It provides sufficient but not thorough context.

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?

The schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; the description adds crucial semantics for the undocumented allowGenericAsync parameter ('pass allowGenericAsync=true only for intentional one-shot async/status panels'). This compensates for the missing schema description, but no added value for the other two.

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 verb 'select', the resource 'best AGS Unity UI recipe', and the outcome 'return a partial spec stub'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like unity_ui_generate (which generates UI) and unity_ui_list_entry_candidates (which lists candidates).

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 provides a usage caveat about allowGenericAsync but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_ui_list_entry_candidates. The context of when not to use it is implied but not stated.

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