unity_ui_verify_backing_class

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

No annotations provided. The description explains the validation purpose but does not disclose potential side effects (likely read-only), error behavior, or output format. While the purpose is clear, behavioral details are minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage order. No redundant information.

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 main purpose and workflow sequence adequately. It does not explain output (e.g., success/failure) or prerequisites beyond sequence, but given the validation context and sibling tools, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context about validation but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. 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 that [SerializeField] fields in a C# backing class match cs_bindings from unity_ui_resolve. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_ui_resolve and unity_ui_generate.

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?

Explicitly says to call 'after writing the C# class and before unity_ui_generate', providing clear workflow ordering and context.

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