unity_get_compilation_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: independence from the console buffer (survives clear and log flooding). This goes beyond what a typical read operation would imply. However, it does not describe potential side effects, permissions, or performance impact, which would justify a higher score.

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, front-loading the core purpose and key differentiator. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 explains what the tool returns (compilation errors/warnings) and its advantage. For a simple retrieval tool without an output schema, this is sufficient. It could be enhanced by briefly noting the structure of returned errors, but the independence from console buffer adds significant context.

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 each parameter has clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra detail beyond the schema (only mentions port context). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Get C# compilation errors/warnings') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `unity_console_log` by stating it is independent of the console buffer and preferable for compile issues.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over unity_console_log for compile issues', providing a direct alternative and usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-compile log messages), which would make it a 5.

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