unity_hub_list_editors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly states the tool lists installed editors and paths, which is a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose performance characteristics, error handling (e.g., if Hub is not installed), or whether the list includes all versions or only those recognized by Hub. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the action and output. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete. It states what it lists (installed Unity Editor versions via Hub) and includes paths. However, it could mention that the output is likely a list of paths or JSON objects, but with no output schema, this is acceptable. The sibling tools are diverse, so differentiation is minimal but not critical for this simple query.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema fully documents the parameterless signature. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters, this is appropriate. A baseline of 3 would apply if coverage were high, but here the description is not needed for parameters; the score is elevated slightly because the tool's simplicity is well-captured.

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 'list' and resource 'Unity Editor versions installed via Unity Hub', and includes installation paths. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unity_hub_available_releases' or 'unity_list_instances', which list available versions or instances, respectively.

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 a simple listing operation with no parameters, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unity_hub_available_releases' (which lists installable versions) or 'unity_list_instances' (which lists running instances). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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