unity_scene_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only (getting information) and lists returned fields. However, it doesn't mention whether it returns information for all open scenes (multiple) or just one, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not detailed about behavioral nuances.

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 is clear and concise, listing the key information returned. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant 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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It lists some fields (name, path, dirty state, root game objects) but could be more complete about structure (e.g., array vs object, for multiple scenes). For a simple info tool, it is mostly adequate but lacks details about response format.

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% (only one parameter, fully described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for the 'port' parameter. The description's mention of 'currently open scene(s)' implies the parameter is optional and default behavior uses a primary instance, which adds slight value.

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 provides information about currently open scene(s) including specific details (name, path, dirty state, root game objects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_scene_stats (which likely gives more aggregated data) and unity_scene_hierarchy (which focuses on hierarchy), though not explicitly. The verb 'Get' and resource 'scene info' are specific.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_scene_stats or unity_scene_hierarchy. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., a scene must be open) or exclusions. The port parameter description gives some usage context for parallel-safe routing, but overall lacks usage guidance.

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