unity_gameobject_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state safety, making it somewhat opaque. However, the context of 'info' suggests non-destructive behavior.

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 a single sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's purpose and the information it returns. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly improved by including a brief note on when to use path vs instanceId, but overall it is efficient.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters (2 optional, 1 with important usage guidance), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention what happens if both path and instanceId are provided, nor does it describe the return format. For a read-only info tool, a bit more detail on return values would be helpful.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but it does summarize the parameters (path, instanceId, port) in the context of the tool's purpose. The port parameter's description includes usage guidance, but the main description does not elaborate on parameters, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'GameObject', and enumerates the exact information returned (transform, components, children, active state, tags, layer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_gameobject_create, unity_gameobject_delete, etc., which perform different operations on GameObjects.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the tool name and purpose imply it is for retrieving info rather than modifying GameObjects, which is a clear contrast to mutation tools. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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