unity_asset_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like default recursive search (hinted in param description), or that it may return large lists (param suggests limiting results). The description is minimal but not misleading. Does not explain whether it scans all assets or only those loaded, but this is acceptable for a list tool.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence of 9 words. Every word adds value. No redundancy. Perfect for a straightforward list tool.

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 (6 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves out details about return format, pagination, or error handling. However, for a listing operation, these may be inferred. The presence of 'port' for multi-instance routing is only explained in the param, not in the description. Sibling tools like unity_asset_import may have different behavior, but not explained.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the filter dimensions ('by path, type, and search term') beyond what each param individually says. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'port' or 'maxResults' beyond the schema. Still, the summary helps the agent understand the overall filtering capabilities.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('assets in the project'), and specifies the filtering dimensions (path, type, search term). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_search_assets (which likely searches across projects or without project context) and unity_scene_hierarchy (which focuses on scene objects).

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 when to use (when listing assets with filters) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings like unity_search_assets or unity_asset_list's own sibling search tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or typical usage context beyond the parameter hints.

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