unity_execute_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'The code runs in the editor context with access to all Unity APIs' and 'Return values are serialized to JSON', which covers execution context and output format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying scene, asset creation) or performance implications, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise at three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: what it does, context, and return value handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the description could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient overall.

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 tool's complexity (arbitrary code execution) and that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It explains the execution environment and return serialization. It lacks details on error handling, security implications, or timeouts, but for a development tool, it is 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 'code' parameter ('Must be a valid method body. Access UnityEngine and UnityEditor namespaces. Use 'return' to send data back.') and the 'port' parameter ('Get this from unity_select_instance. When working with multiple Unity instances, ALWAYS include this parameter.'). This provides practical guidance not in the schema.

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 'Execute arbitrary C# code inside the Unity Editor', specifying the verb ('execute'), resource ('C# code'), and context ('Unity Editor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'arbitrary code' and 'one-off operations, queries, and automation', which sets it apart from more specific tools like 'unity_execute_menu_item'.

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 provides some context on when to use ('one-off operations, queries, and automation') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools. No guidance on avoiding it for repeated tasks or for specific operations better handled by other tools.

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