unity_prefab_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states the tool retrieves information (overrides, variant status, added/removed components) and works on both asset and instance contexts. No side effects are implied, which is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant words or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate high-level context but lacks details on return format, behavior when multiple parameters are given, or order of precedence. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about what info is returned but does not elaborate on how parameters affect output. It lists overrides, variant status, etc., which complements the parameter names but adds minimal extra meaning.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed prefab information: overrides, variant status, added/removed components.' It specifies the resource (prefabs) and that it works on both prefab assets and scene instances, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle game objects, components, or other aspects.

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 indicates it works on prefab assets and scene instances, providing some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_gameobject_info or unity_search_assets. No exclusion criteria or comparisons are given.

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