unity_ui_validate

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

The description notes that validation occurs 'without opening Unity,' implying a non-interactive operation, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose without fluff, though a brief sentence on usage or behavior could be added without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal for a validation tool. It does not explain what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, connectivity), leaving gaps for the AI agent.

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 100% with descriptions for both specPath and projectPath, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 validates a shared AGS Unity UI recipe, with the specific constraint 'without opening Unity,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_inspect_generated_layout.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like unity_ui_preflight or unity_ui_scene_preflight, and no prerequisites or usage context are mentioned.

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