unity_gameobject_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of information returned (transform, components, etc.), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the GameObject doesn't exist). The description adds some value beyond the input schema by outlining output content.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key information types. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description effectively conveys the return content. It covers the essential aspects of a read tool for a specific GameObject. However, it could be more complete by noting any prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist) or the format of the returned data.

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 does not add further meaning to the parameters (path, instanceId, port) beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Hierarchy path or name' but this is already 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 the action (Get detailed info) and the resource (specific GameObject), listing the specific types of information returned (transform, components, children, active state, tags, layer). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or modify 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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific GameObject is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., unity_scene_hierarchy for listing or unity_search_by_name for finding). No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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