unity_packages_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it lists installed packages, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it doesn't disclose whether it requires a specific Unity instance to be active, or if it returns an empty list when no packages are installed. The parameter description provides context for parallel-safe routing, which adds some transparency.

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 directly states the tool's function. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a brief note on usage context, but given its simplicity, it's effective.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns. However, it doesn't mention that the list might be empty or that the port is optional. The lack of output schema means the description must cover return format, but it does so adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents the port parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose (parallel-safe routing) and provides a cross-reference to another tool (unity_select_instance) for getting the port. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it lists installed Unity packages and specifies the information returned (name, version, source, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_packages_add, unity_packages_remove, unity_packages_search, and unity_packages_info, which have different purposes. However, it doesn't differentiate from unity_asset_list, which lists assets, but the difference is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that unity_packages_info might provide detailed info on a specific package, or that unity_packages_search is for searching remote packages. The context is implied, but no exclusions or conditions are given.

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