unity_project_info

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

The description indicates a read operation returning project details, which is consistent with the tool name. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose potential side effects or permissions needed, but given the read-only nature, this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence listing the information fields, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists the output fields, which is sufficient for a simple read tool. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what it will get.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the port parameter's purpose (target instance, parallel-safe routing) and a usage hint (get from unity_select_instance), going beyond the schema's 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 gets project information and lists specific fields (name, path, Unity version, render pipeline, packages, build settings), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like unity_project_context which likely provides context information.

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 usage for retrieving project metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. The port parameter description provides some guidance on when to include it (when multiple instances), but no guidance on when not to use this tool.

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