unity_get_project_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies the operation is safe and non-destructive by stating it retrieves documentation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or discuss potential errors, limitations, or authentication needs.

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 brief and to the point, with key information front-loaded. It uses imperative language and an 'IMPORTANT' highlight for key usage timing, with no superfluous content.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter options. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling (e.g., missing category), or behavior when no context exists. Overall sufficient but could be enhanced.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that omitting category returns all context. It also reinforces the port parameter's role, though that is already clear in 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 tool retrieves project-specific context and documentation prepared for AI agents, including specific examples like project guidelines and architecture docs. It uniquely identifies the tool's role among siblings.

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 advises to call early in the session and explains when to omit or include arguments. However, it does not mention cases where the tool should not be used or provide explicit alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.

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