unity_search_missing_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the tool as finding missing references and scripts, but does not detail whether the tool modifies anything, how deep the search goes, or if it affects scene state. The description is adequate but lacks details on performance impact or side effects.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient and easy to read, with no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the main functionality from the usage guidance.

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 that the tool has no output schema and three parameters with good schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and primary use case. It could be improved by noting what the output looks like (e.g., list of objects or count) and whether it can be filtered further, but overall it provides enough context for an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters (scope, limit, port). The description does not repeat parameter details, but the schema itself provides sufficient meaning. The description adds value by indicating the tool is for cleanup/debugging, but does not add further parameter semantics beyond schema.

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 finds missing/broken object references and missing scripts, and it is intended for cleanup and debugging. It specifies a verb ('Find') and a resource ('missing/broken object references and missing scripts'), which distinguishes it from most siblings, though some search tools exist (e.g., unity_search_by_component) that could overlap in purpose.

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 mentions it is 'Essential for cleanup and debugging,' which gives context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like unity_search_by_component or unity_get_compilation_errors. The input schema includes a port parameter with guidance for parallel-safe routing, which helps in multi-instance scenarios.

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