unity_editor_ping

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

Annotations are absent, so description bears full burden. It clearly states read-like behavior (ping) and lists returned fields (version, project name, connection status). Could disclose potential side effects like logging or timeout behavior, but overall transparent for a health-check 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero filler. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple ping with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains behavior and return data. No output schema means agents must infer format, but listed fields compensate. No critical gaps given tool complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds usage context: 'Always include it when multiple instances run' – a meaningful hint beyond schema's description of 'Unity instance port'. This guidance helps agents decide when to supply the optional parameter.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check if...running and responsive' and identifies resource (Unity Editor bridge). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_editor_state which likely provides more detailed state, not just a ping.

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?

Description implies usage for checking bridge responsiveness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., unity_editor_state). No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites provided.

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