unity_editor_ping

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is non-destructive (checking status) and returns specific data. However, it does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but the behavior is straightforward and low-risk.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its behavior and inputs. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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%, and the description adds context for the 'port' parameter by mentioning parallel-safe routing and referencing unity_select_instance. This adds value beyond the schema description, which already explains the parameter well.

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 checks if the Unity Editor bridge is running and responsive, specifying it returns editor version, project name, and connection status. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among many sibling tools focused on asset creation, game object manipulation, etc.

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 using this tool to verify connectivity before other operations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, given the context of sibling tools like unity_list_instances and unity_select_instance, the usage context is clear.

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