unity_agents_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It accurately indicates the tool is read-only (listing data) and specifies the returned fields. However, it does not mention performance implications, error conditions (e.g., no bridge), or whether the data is real-time or cached.

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 sentences: first states the main function, second lists the data fields. No fluff, front-loaded with action and resource.

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, the description compensates by enumerating all return fields. The tool is simple (one optional param, read-only list), so the description covers the core behavior well. Minor gap: no mention of empty result behavior or error conditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details, but the single parameter 'port' is well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that it lists 'active agent sessions', which implies the port selects the Unity instance context.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with resource 'active agent sessions connected to the AB Unity MCP bridge', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_agent_log or unity_list_instances. It enumerates the exact data fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for retrieving active agent sessions but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like unity_agent_log or unity_queue_info. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., requires an active Unity instance and connection).

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