unity_gameobject_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (get info) and lists retrieved fields, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., running Unity instance with the GameObject), error behavior, or performance impact. Lacks depth for a read operation.

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?

Single sentence listing key info types is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Some structure (e.g., bullet points for returned data) could improve readability, but current length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description names returned data types but lacks full specificity (e.g., structure of transform or components). With no output schema, the agent must infer return format. Missing error conditions or hints about required inputs (path vs instanceId). Adequate but not thorough.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (path, port, instanceId). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely references 'detailed info' without elaborating on parameter usage or relationships.

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 'Get detailed info about a specific GameObject' and lists specific data included (transform, components, children, active state, tags, layer). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_gameobject_set_active or unity_scene_hierarchy.

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 usage when detailed GameObject info is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar info tools (e.g., unity_scene_info, unity_scene_hierarchy) or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or context cues.

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