unity_undo_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior as a read-only listing of undo history, detailing the data returned. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but the lack of annotations is mitigated by the explicit description of output fields.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and immediately follows with actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what is listed (recent undo actions), key fields, and how to use it. It could be more complete by mentioning ordering (newest first, as implied by the 'count' parameter) but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: the 'port' parameter's usage hint is already in the schema description, and the 'agentId' usage is slightly amplified. It does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 recent MCP actions with undo state, specifying the exact information returned (per-agent attribution, undoability, target, undo group). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool unity_undo_last by stating its purpose is to decide what that tool reverts.

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 clear usage context: 'Use it to decide what unity_undo_last reverts or to pick an agentId.' This tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond unity_undo_last, leaving room for improvement.

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