Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions are detailed. However, with 94 tools, some overlap exists (e.g., multiple download texture tools, multiple install editor tools), which could cause minor confusion. Overall, well differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_project, build_scene, get_license_status). This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 94 tools, the set is excessively large. Even for a broad scope like Unity development, this number risks overwhelming agents and increases the chance of misselection. The typical well-scoped range is 3-15 tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering project management, asset creation, scene building, animation, profiling, testing, external integrations (Blender, Figma, Krita), and more. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of MCP-assisted Unity development.
Average 3.6/5 across 94 of 94 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action, failing to explain potential side effects like launching processes or changing state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but borderline under-specified. It front-loads the verb but lacks structure or additional information to justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain expected behavior, environment dependencies, or error conditions, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It does not mention the 'link' parameter, its format (e.g., must start with unityhub://), or any constraints, adding no value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens any unityhub:// deep link. The verb 'Öffnet' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_editor_via_deeplink which has a different purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as install_editor_via_deeplink. No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Path-Sandbox + Backup', indicating safety features beyond annotations. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a safe write operation. However, it does not detail what the sandbox restricts or when backup is restored, leaving behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines), but lacks critical details. It is concise in length but under-informative. A better balance would include brief explanations of parameters or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and a file-writing operation, the description is incomplete. It mentions sandbox and backup but does not explain overwrite behavior, path resolution, or error conditions. An agent would have too little context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain any parameter. It is unclear what project_path vs rel_path mean, or what content expects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it writes any text file into the project and lists example file types (JSON, .asmdef, .shader, .txt, .csv). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_script (which writes code scripts). However, it does not specify overwrite behavior or if it creates new files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for general text files, but does not mention that write_script should be used for scripts or that read_project_file reads files. Lack of exclusion or context makes it less helpful for an AI agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on error, output format, or if the call is blocking. The stream parameter is mentioned, but that is already in 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from a more informative yet compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the tool needs a richer description. It does not specify return values, pagination, or edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'stream' parameter (with values) but ignores 'job_id' (required) and 'tail_lines' (default=200). Inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads job output and specifies the stream parameter values ('stdout' | 'stderr'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' and 'read_editor_log'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when to choose stdout vs stderr. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal value. It mentions reading a JSON but does not disclose behaviors like file location, error handling, or format expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify where the result_file is located, what keys the JSON contains, or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It refers to 'result_file' but does not explain its expected format, path, or allowed values, leaving the agent unclear about what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a result JSON from build/export/info, specifying the action (read) and resource (result JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like get_compile_result by referencing build/export/info, but could be more explicit about the source tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_compile_result or get_test_results. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that it types literal text. There is no mention of what happens if the window is not focused, how special characters are handled, or other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks crucial context such as prerequisites (focus), error conditions, side effects, and what constitutes 'literal text.' It is not complete enough for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'text' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on its semantics, such as encoding, length limits, or handling of newlines. The description merely implies the text is typed literally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool types literal text into a focused window, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gui_send_keys, which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that typing occurs into the 'focused window,' implying a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gui_send_keys) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying recursive behavior and exclusion of .meta files. No contradictions, but no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth needs) are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste. Minor issue: being in German may not suit all agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema description and no output schema, the description covers only pattern behavior. It omits essential context about project_path, subdir, limit, and return format, making it incomplete for robust tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'pattern' parameter with an example, but does not explain 'project_path', 'subdir', or 'limit'. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('list'), resource ('asset files of a project'), and key details (recursive, exclude .meta, pattern example). The language mix (German) is minor, and while the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_project_asset, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose but lacks context about when not to use it or comparisons to siblings like list_animation_clips or list_project_packages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but removing a script is potentially destructive. The description does not clarify reversibility, side effects, or safety. Without annotations describing behavior, the description fails to disclose important traits like whether the script is permanently deleted or can be re-injected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence with a parameter hint. No unnecessary words. However, the German text may reduce clarity for non-German-speaking agents. The structure is front-loaded with the action, which is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, no return value description, and only two parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after removal (e.g., is the file deleted? Does the editor need to be restarted?). More context, such as confirmation prompts or error states, would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are missing for both parameters. The description adds 'confirm=true', implying that confirm must be set to true for the removal to occur, which compensates slightly. However, it does not explain the project_path parameter or provide format/syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 0% schema coverage but partial compensation via the confirm hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool removes a specific server-injected C# automation script from a known location (Assets/Editor/MCP). The resource is unique among siblings, though the description does not explicitly differentiate from other removal tools. The German language may limit universal understanding, but the purpose is specific and clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_project_package, delete_project_asset). There is no mention of prerequisites, expected outcomes, or scenarios where it should not be used. The 'confirm=true' hint gives a usage condition but lacks broader context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate no readOnly or destructive hint (false). The description adds context that the tool creates a sprite as a job, but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites. No contradiction 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence captures the core purpose, but the description is lengthy (4-5 sentences) with extra details about downstream usage that could be omitted or placed elsewhere. A more concise version would improve efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain key parameters, job behavior, or return values. It mentions a 'job' but lacks detail about duration or results, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'shape' parameter is described ('square' | 'circle'), but the schema has no enum and description lacks coverage for other parameters (project_path, path, width, height, color). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a procedural placeholder sprite for 2D games, specifying shape options. However, it includes downstream usage instructions (build_scene, camera, physics) that are not part of the tool's function, slightly diluting focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for 2D games without external art, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The included usage pattern with build_scene offers guidance, but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it modifies project assets and requires confirm=true, which is useful but does not disclose other potential side effects or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and key constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of importing a package, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on success/failure behavior, return value, or handling of the optional 'version' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'confirm' parameter (confirm=true necessary). It does not describe 'project_path', 'package_path', or 'version', leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports a .unitypackage headless into a project and runs as a job. While it is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_external_asset'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that 'confirm=true' is necessary because it modifies project assets, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds 'as text' but does not disclose behavior like handling of binary files, errors, or the effect of max_bytes parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though additional brief context could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions in schema, the description should explain the return value (text string) and parameter roles. It lacks this, making it insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (project_path, rel_path, max_bytes). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'reads' and resource 'project file as text' with examples (script, config), distinguishing it from sibling read tools like read_editor_log that target different files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_editor_log, read_hub_logs). The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, only mentioning confirm parameter. No disclosure of side effects, authorization needs, or output details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single sentence, but lacks structure and the 'confirm=true' fragment seems out of place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or rich annotations. Missing explanation of version, return value, and workflow context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'version' parameter and only mentions 'confirm=true' without clarifying its meaning. Compensation is poor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates a manual activation file (.alf) for uploading to license.unity3d.com, distinguishing it from siblings like apply_license_file and get_license_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage when a manual activation file is needed, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says it downloads and unpacks files, which is a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, severely compromising transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise with 4 sentences that front-load the main action. It includes usage guidance for Unity/Blender, which is helpful but slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers core functionality and provides examples, the contradiction with annotations and lack of explanation for dest_dir reduce completeness. No output schema or error handling mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains asset_id and resolution with examples, adding value beyond the schema, but fails to describe dest_dir.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads a CC0-PBR set from ambientCG and unpacks specific maps, with examples of asset_id and resolution. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (ambientCG vs. Polyhaven).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides examples of asset_id and resolution and suggests use in Unity or Blender, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like download_polyhaven_texture or search_pbr_materials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral detail of reading the last tail_lines lines, but beyond that, it does not disclose additional traits. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited value. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it could include parameter explanations without much overhead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation, the description covers the main function but lacks parameter details and output format. Given no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the return type (plain text lines).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions tail_lines by name but does not explain the 'previous' boolean parameter. The agent cannot infer the purpose of 'previous' from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('reads'), the resource ('Unity Editor log file'), and the scope ('last tail_lines lines'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_hub_logs or read_project_file by specifying it is for Editor.log and Editor-prev.log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_hub_logs or detect_errors_in_log. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral note that 'confirm=true' is required, which supplements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not disclose other traits like permission requirements or side effects of adding an editor.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence and a CLI reference. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter info).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the tool's action but omits return value, parameter details for 'editor_path', and any post-conditions. More context is needed for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description fails to explain the required 'editor_path' parameter. It only mentions the 'confirm' parameter's behavior. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: binding an editor installed outside the Hub, using the equivalent Hub-CLI command 'editors --add'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'install_editor' which install new editors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'install_editor' or 'install_editor_via_deeplink'. The description only mentions the analogous CLI command, but does not provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the job is blocking, what happens if job_id is invalid). While consistent with annotations, it does not provide additional value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though it could benefit from minimal additional details about the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits essential context such as return value format, possible status values, and error cases. This undermines an agent's ability to use the tool correctly, especially when integrating with siblings like list_jobs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fails to explain the job_id parameter's meaning or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying how to obtain job_id (e.g., from list_jobs) or what format it expects (e.g., GUID). It does not, leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the status of a background job, listing common job types (Install/Build/Test/Import/Export/Method). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_build_result or get_test_results, as it is a generic status checker for any background job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking job status but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools such as get_build_result, get_test_results, or read_job_output. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool starts the editor headless and injects a C# script, running as a job. It does not contradict annotations but lacks full disclosure on whether any persistent state changes occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and does not describe the return format or the location/format of the result file. Given the complexity of running a job and reading output, this omission makes the description incomplete for practical agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It provides no details about the 'project_path' or 'version' parameters beyond their existence, leaving the agent without guidance on required format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool starts the editor headless and reads live info such as active BuildTarget, scripting defines, and active scenes. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_project_info' by specifying it runs as a job and reads live data, but does not explicitly contrast with it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining live project info asynchronously via a job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_project_info', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that results are obtained via get_build_result, indicating an async job. It does not disclose permissions or side effects, but given annotations' lack, it adds moderate value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences covering purpose, example, and result retrieval. It is focused and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage context, and how to retrieve results. It lacks details on error conditions or edge cases, but is adequate for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description gives general context (asset type: FBX/.anim) but does not explain project_path or asset_path specifically. More detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists AnimationClip names in an imported asset, with a specific use case (e.g., for build_animator_controller). It differentiates from similar tools like create_animation_clip, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an example use case (getting clip names for an animator controller), implying when it should be used. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that backups are server-created and ordered newest-first, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the action. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the basic purpose and ordering, but omits output format, any prerequisites, and parameter details. For a read list tool, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its meaning. The agent must infer from the name and default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists file backups from the server with newest-first ordering. The verb 'listet' and resource 'Datei-Backups' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'restore_backup' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_project_assets). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description adds that confirm=true is required. No other behavioral traits (side effects, permissions) are disclosed. Description adds some value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose and a key requirement are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description only explains one parameter (confirm). Missing details about project_path, favorite, and force_hub_running, as well as return value or behavior. Insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Only the 'confirm' parameter is mentioned in the description. Other parameters (project_path, favorite, force_hub_running) are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set/remove favorite star) and the resource (project in hub list). However, it is in German, which may reduce clarity for English-speaking agents, and does not distinguish from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'confirm=true needed,' providing a usage condition. But it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations: 'destructiveHint: true' matches the destructive action of canceling a job. It adds the important behavioral constraint that confirm must be true for the action to happen. However, it does not elaborate on consequences like irreversibility or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence fragment. It front-loads the action and key requirement, with no wasted words. While very short, it is efficient for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete for someone familiar with the Unity automation context. It explains the action and a critical parameter constraint, but lacks context about what constitutes a 'job' or how to retrieve a job_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain both parameters. It only adds meaning for 'confirm' (must be true), but says nothing about 'job_id' (its format or how to obtain it). The description partially compensates but leaves a significant gap for the required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'abbrechen' (cancel) and resource 'Job', clearly indicating it cancels a running job. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the context of 'stop_job' among job-related tools like 'list_jobs' and 'get_job_status' makes its purpose evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one guideline: 'confirm=true nötig' (confirm=true necessary), indicating that the confirm parameter must be set to true to actually stop the job. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), or alternatives (though none directly exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it applies a license file, which is consistent with a write operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus fragment) but includes important context (step 3 and confirm=true). However, it could be more structured to clearly separate parameter information from usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about preconditions, effects, and error handling. It only mentions it's a step in manual activation, which is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. Only confirm's default is mentioned (confirm=true) but not explained what it does. ulf_path and version are not described beyond their names, leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a downloaded .ulf license file as part of manual activation step 3. This is specific and distinguishes it from other tools, as no other license activation tools exist in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies it's for manual activation step 3, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (which indicate non-read-only and non-destructive), the description reveals important runtime behavior: it runs with -force-d3d11 (not -nographics) to avoid black images, and instructs to open output_png after job completion. This adds value but could detail job failure handling or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the main action. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the second and third sentences could be integrated for better flow without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks explanation of the job mechanism, return value (likely job ID), and how to retrieve the final PNG. With no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and use the tool's result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions output_png in context. It does not explain parameters like project_path, scene_path, width, height, or version, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a camera of a scene headless into a PNG for visual inspection. It specifies the output format and that the image can be used for error detection. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blender_render_preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for visual inspection but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage context is implied but not thorough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it reimports the asset, which is consistent. No further behavioral details (e.g., overwrites previous settings, requires asset to exist) are provided, but annotations cover the core safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details the settings_props structure. It uses bullet-like formatting (dashes and colons) for clarity. No extraneous sentences; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the tool is a mutation so return may not be critical. It covers the main parameters and effects, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), or behavior when settings are invalid. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly by explaining asset_path (project-relative path) and settings_props (list of settings with types and enums). However, project_path is not explained, leaving one parameter ambiguous. Overall, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets import settings and reimports an asset, using a specific verb ('Setzt' and 'reimportiert') and resource ('Import-Einstellungen eines Assets'). It distinguishes from siblings like import_external_asset by focusing on configuration rather than initial import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for adjusting import settings of an already imported asset, but does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to similar tools like configure_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint as true. The description adds 'best-effort' which indicates potential unreliability, and 'via the Unity Licensing Client' clarifies the dependency. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence in German, concise but may be less accessible to English agents. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description omits what the return value looks like (e.g., status string, object). For a tool with no parameters, output details are important.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter info; baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves license status via Unity Licensing Client in a read-only manner. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'apply_license_file' which is a write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_environment_status' which might also provide license info. No explicit when-not or considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating the specific return fields (avgFrameMs, maxMemMB, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it omits necessary parameter details, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one required parameter and no output schema, the description lists return values but does not explain the parameter 'perf_file' (e.g., its format or source). The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single required parameter 'perf_file'. The description fails to explain what 'perf_file' is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reads a profiling result with specific metrics (avgFrameMs, avgFps, etc.), which is a precise verb+resource combination. Among sibling tools like 'profile_play' that start profiling, this one retrieves results, providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage after profiling is performed but does not specify prerequisites like needing to run 'profile_play' first. No explicit guidance on when or when not to use, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all false) and the description does not disclose key behaviors like that it opens a GUI window, may block execution, or requires user interaction. The term 'GUI' hints at a graphical interface, but concrete behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the main purpose and workflow. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structured could improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and links to a sibling tool, but lacks details on return value, blocking behavior, and prerequisites. For a GUI-opening tool, more context about the interactive nature would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the sole parameter 'file_path'. It only mentions 'Öffnet Krita (GUI)' without linking to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens Krita GUI for manual polishing of 2D art, specifying the verb 'opens' and resource 'Krita GUI'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the subsequent export step (krita_export).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear workflow: use this tool to open Krita, save as .kra, then use krita_export. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sequential guidance is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds 'mit Status', hinting at return content but no deeper behavioral notes (e.g., ordering, pagination). This is acceptable given the simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently states purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool with one optional parameter. However, missing output schema means the agent lacks return value details. No major gaps given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'limit' parameter. The agent must infer its meaning from the default value alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing recent background jobs with status. The verb 'listet' and resource 'Hintergrund-Jobs' are specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_job_status' which handles single jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it for listing all jobs, but lacks context about filtering or when to use 'get_job_status' instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that confirm=true is required, implying a safety mechanism. It also specifies that the tool modifies projectDir.json. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites values, requires permissions, or handles invalid directories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a parenthetical note and a requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and the tool modifies a configuration file, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or preconditions (e.g., existing projectDir.json). An agent would need more context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating confirm=true is needed, which is a constraint on the confirm parameter. However, it does not explain the 'directory' parameter format (e.g., path, relative, absolute) or the effect of confirm=false. The description is insufficient for an agent to use parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the default folder for new projects (projectDir.json). The verb 'Setzt' (sets) combined with the resource 'Standardordner' makes the action unambiguous. The mention of confirm=true needed distinguishes it from get_default_project_dir, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_default_project_dir. It only mentions that confirm=true is required, which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline. No scenarios or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it's a background job, requires confirmation (confirm=true), and the result is read from a file. It also mentions the underlying method (BuildPipeline.BuildPlayer via injected C#). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences in German, front-loading the main action and key parameters. It could be more structured, but it is not verbose or wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers the overall flow (background job, result file) but misses full parameter details and explicit output format. The reference to get_build_result helps, but the tool is complex and the description is adequate yet incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains build_target with examples, scenes as optional, and highlights confirm=true as necessary. However, it does not describe project_path, output_path, development, or version, leaving gaps for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool builds a player as a background job using BuildPipeline.BuildPlayer, which is clear. It gives examples of build_target values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling build tools like build_scene or build_animator_controller, though the resource is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context: examples for build_target, optional scenes, and the need for confirm=true and reading the result file via get_build_result. It does not include explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds 'Path-Sandbox aktiv' information beyond annotations, indicating some sandboxing behavior. Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Efficient but could add more value without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is too brief. It lacks details on path semantics, error handling, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for 'project_path' or 'rel_path' beyond the example. The parameters remain largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a folder in the project with a concrete example ('Assets/Scripts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'delete_project_asset'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit instructions on when to use or avoid this tool. The context implies it's for creating subfolders, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations set readOnlyHint: true, but the tool actually downloads and writes files (dest_dir), which is a write operation. This contradiction severely misleads about behavior. Additionally, no disclosure of file overwrites, permissions, or network usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence packs many details, but is somewhat long. Structurally front-loaded with the main action and key parameters. Could benefit from breaking into two sentences for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential parameters and output usage, but misses details on dest_dir behavior and does not mention return values. Annotations are contradictory, reducing trust. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: examples for asset_id, valid resolution options ('1k'/'2k'/'4k'/'8k'), and format choices ('png'/'jpg'). It also implies dest_dir usage, though not fully specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads CC0 PBR texture sets from Poly Haven and classifies maps (baseColor, normal, roughness, etc.). It provides specific examples for asset_id, resolution, and format, and distinguishes from siblings by detailing the Unity integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing CC0 PBR textures for Unity, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives like 'download_pbr_material' or 'search_polyhaven_textures'. Guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by noting that a partial title match works, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., window not found) or any other effects on focus state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and a key behavioral detail. However, using German may reduce clarity for an English-oriented agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information (action, partial title). It is reasonably complete, though error handling or success conditions are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the 'title' parameter accepts partial matches. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though examples or format would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('brings a window to the foreground') and specifies that a partial title suffices. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gui_list_windows or gui_inspect_window, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the window existing or being listed, nor does it indicate that listing windows first is recommended.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that it runs headless as a job and works even if code does not compile, which is useful. However, it does not explain if compilation produces project modifications or the job behavior (e.g., async nature).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey primary action, context (headless job), follow-up step, and ideal use case. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a compilation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input (project path), behavior (headless, job), result retrieval (get_compile_result), and edge case (non-compiling code). It provides enough context for an agent to use it in automated loops.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_path implicitly by stating 'alle Skripte des Projekts', but does not explain the 'version' parameter (optional). No additional semantic guidance beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Kompiliert alle Skripte des Projekts headless' which specifies the verb (compiles), resource (all scripts), and mode (headless as a job). It distinguishes from sibling build tools like build_scene by focusing on scripts, and mentions a follow-up tool get_compile_result, aiding differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests ideal usage: 'Ideal für Schreiben→Prüfen→Auto-Fix-Schleifen' (write-check-auto-fix loops) and directs the user to get_compile_result for structured errors. It provides context for when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond 'gets the upper structure'. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not provide additional context such as rate limits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that gets to the point. It is concise, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks details on required parameters, output format, and the purpose of 'token'. Annotations fill some gaps, but the description is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. Only 'depth' is implied via 'sparsam (depth)'. 'file_key' and 'token' are not described, leaving their purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the upper structure of a Figma file, including frame/node IDs and names, and mentions the depth parameter for sparseness. It distinguishes itself from the sibling figma_export_images which handles image export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only related sibling is figma_export_images, but no comparison is made. The hint about depth is implied, but no when-not or use-case advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what information is parsed. But it does not cover error handling, return format, or what happens if the log is malformed. The annotation already indicates it is read-only, so the description provides moderate additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and output. It could be slightly improved by structuring as separate points, but it is efficient and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input source and parsed output fields. However, it does not explain the return structure or any pagination/formatting of results, leaving some gaps for the agent to understand what to expect from the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter 'log_file' is not described in the schema. The description only mentions 'editor log' but does not specify the expected format (path, content, file extension, etc.). This leaves ambiguity for the agent on how to provide the parameter value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses compiler errors/warnings from an editor log, specifying the extracted fields (file, line, column, CS-code, message) and the source commands (check_compile, build_scene, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that also work with compilation results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that the input is an editor log from specific commands, which gives implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like detect_errors_in_log or read_editor_log, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool runs asynchronously as a background job and requires the confirm parameter to be true. This exceeds what the structured annotations provide, earning a 4. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and add critical behavioral notes. Every sentence is necessary and efficient, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and key behaviors (background job, confirm requirement), but lacks details on return values (since no output schema exists), error handling, and prerequisites beyond having an installed editor. These gaps reduce completeness for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only clarifies that confirm must be true, but does not explain version, modules, or child_modules. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage, resulting in a score of 2.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds modules to an already installed editor and references the Hub-CLI command, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like install_editor or install_editor_via_deeplink, which limits the score to 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool runs as a background job and requires confirm=true, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it uses deep link and opens Hub GUI, implying interactive behavior. Does not contradict annotations, provides useful context beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but fails to include parameter information, making it less efficient. Could be restructured to hint at params.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, low schema coverage. Description explains purpose and usage context but omits parameter descriptions and any output/return behavior. Lacks completeness for a two-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and description does not explain the two required parameters (version, changeset) at all. This is a major gap for a tool with only these params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it starts editor installation via a unityhub:// deep link. Distinguishes from headless installation (sibling tool 'install_editor') by describing it as an alternative for GUI confirmation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use: when GUI confirmation is desired, as alternative to headless. Does not specify when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context by clarifying that files are NOT deleted, which alleviates concern over the destructive hint. It also highlights the confirm parameter requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action, key exception, and a usage requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose and clarifies no file deletion, but it omits details about optional parameters, behavior when hub is not running, and return values. Given the tool's simplicity, some gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that 'confirm' must be true but fails to describe 'project_path' or 'force_hub_running', leaving their semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes a project from the hub list and explicitly notes it does not delete project files, which distinguishes its purpose from deletion. However, it could also contrast with the sibling 'register_project_in_hub' to clarify the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that 'confirm=true' is necessary, providing a specific usage requirement. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_project_in_hub' or other deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying what is checked (version, Python, exports). It discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, though it does not mention non-destructive nature or speed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes additional scope details without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description states what is checked, it does not describe the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the result type (e.g., boolean or details). This gap reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks Blender (headless) availability, specifying it examines version, Python, and glTF/FBX export capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_render_preview, which perform rendering, not status checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or that it should be called before other Blender operations. Explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it checks the process list, which is consistent but does not reveal further behavioral traits like whether it accesses external resources or has any 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple check tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the return value. Although there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean) to be complete. Without this, the agent cannot know what to expect from the invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'prüft' (checks) and the resource 'Unity Hub', and specifies the method 'Prozessliste' (process list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'launch_hub' or 'list_unity_processes' by focusing on the running status of Hub.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used before launching or after closing Hub, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'launch_hub' or 'close_hub'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool runs as a job (non-blocking) and requires confirm=true to proceed. It also notes the underlying implementation. This provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary information present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation for project_path and output_path, does not describe return values or errors, and misses important parameter semantics for version.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains asset_paths (project-relative, example) and confirm (needs true). However, it does not explain project_path, output_path, or version, leaving three out of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports assets as a .unitypackage via AssetDatabase.ExportPackage, running as a job. It specifies that asset_paths are project-relative (e.g., ['Assets/Prefabs']). This distinguishes it from siblings like import_unitypackage and delete_project_asset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage for exporting assets as a .unitypackage but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for sibling tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the input source (from run_tests) and the output structure (pass/fail numbers and error details). However, it does not disclose error handling or other traits, and the annotations already indicate read-only behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and expected output. It could be more explicit about the output format, but it is adequate for the agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds context that results_xml is an NUnit3 XML from run_tests, but does not detail format, encoding, or examples. This provides minimal but non-trivial semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses NUnit3 XML results and provides pass/fail numbers and error details. The verb 'parst' specifies the action, and the resource is identified. However, the description is in German, which may pose challenges for English-speaking agents, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used after run_tests, as it specifically mentions input from that sibling tool. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's not read-only but not destructive. The description adds 'via Krita' which implies reliance on an external application, but does not disclose side effects like whether Krita needs to be running or if files are overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with annotations present, the description covers the essential transformation logic and output format determination. Could mention if Krita must be closed or if the operation is synchronous, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that out_path's extension sets the output format, but does not describe kra_path beyond implication as source file. Both parameters would benefit from more explicit semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts specific file formats (.kra/.psd/.tiff) to PNG/JPG via Krita, with the output format determined by the file extension in out_path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_open.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., Krita installation), or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it reads from a specific file (Packages/manifest.json), which is consistent but does not disclose further behavioral traits like return format or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., names, versions). Some detail is missing for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'project_path' parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. Despite the single parameter, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Listet' and the resource 'direkten Paket-Abhängigkeiten eines Projekts aus Packages/manifest.json'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_project_package' and 'remove_project_package'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing dependencies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the action occurs in the active editor, which is a behavioral constraint beyond annotations (which are all false). However, it does not disclose whether the tool waits for user interaction, returns status, or has any side effects. Annotations provide minimal safety info, so the description partially compensates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return behavior, error cases, or prerequisites beyond 'active editor'. For a UI tool, one might need to know if it blocks, returns a job ID, or requires specific editor state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for the single parameter, but the tool description provides an example ('com.unity.cinemachine@2.9.7'), clarifying the expected format (package identifier with optional version). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: opens the package manager install UI for a specific package in the active editor. It specifies the resource (a package) and the action (opens install UI), and the example differentiates it from broader tools like open_deep_link or add_project_package.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for programmatic installation one might use add_project_package, or for generic deep links use open_deep_link. The description lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-destructive action. The description adds behavioral details about using the unity CLI or Unity.exe and reading ProjectVersion.txt, which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic opening action and method, it omits details like project existence requirements, version handling, or return behavior. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters or add meaning to project_path or version. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens a project in the editor GUI, using specific methods. It distinguishes from siblings like create_project or open_create_project_ui.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the method (CLI or Unity.exe) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the tool's purpose and output, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads key information, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a search with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source and purpose but lacks details on result structure and behavior (e.g., pagination, sorting), which the agent might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides example queries for the 'query' parameter but no explanation of the 'limit' parameter or how the query syntax works, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for CC0-PBR materials on ambientCG with examples, and explicitly mentions it returns asset IDs for download_pbr_material, distinguishing it from siblings like search_polyhaven_textures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching ambientCG materials and mentions the downstream tool, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it creates a clip. No further info on permissions, side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but informative, with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose, and the second provides a practical spec example. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description lacks return value information. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, success status), leaving a gap for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a concrete example of the spec object with path, frameRate, loop, and curves structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an AnimationClip from keyframe curves, with examples like Idle-Bob and Pulsieren. It effectively distinguishes from siblings such as list_animation_clips (listing) and build_animator_controller (building controllers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage guidance is implied: procedural animation without external assets. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like build_animator_controller, and no exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, focus requirements, or potential triggers. It adds basic syntax context but lacks deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential examples. Every part serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that a target window must be focused, but overall it provides sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the pywinauto syntax and providing examples ('^s', '{ENTER}', '%{F4}'). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 'Keys' label.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sends raw key sequences using pywinauto syntax with concrete examples. While it distinguishes from 'gui_type_text' implicitly, it does not explicitly differentiate among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for keyboard shortcuts and special keys but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'gui_type_text'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds that the current file at target_path is backed up again before restoration, a key side effect. It also notes the need for confirm=true, a safety requirement. This supplements the annotations usefully.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence and a parenthetical note. No wasted words, and the critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and the tool's destructive nature, the description covers the core action, location, prerequisite (confirm), and a side effect. However, it omits details about the backup_file parameter and what happens on success or error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions target_path and confirm, but does not describe backup_file at all, leaving its meaning unclear. The description partially compensates but misses one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'restores a backed up file to target_path'. It specifies the resource (backed up file) and includes a notable behavioral detail (current file is backed up again beforehand). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_backups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_backups or other file operations. It implies confirm=true is required but does not explain context or prerequisites beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint as false. The description adds the behavioral detail that the process is 'detached', which is useful but not extensive. Additional context (e.g., whether launching again if already running creates a new instance) is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with every word earning its place. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately captures the core function. It mentions the detached process, which implies non-blocking behavior. However, it could mention whether it checks for existing instances or requires that the Hub is not already running.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; baseline is 4 per instructions. No additional value needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Starts the Unity Hub GUI (detached process)' with a specific verb ('start') and explicit resource ('Unity Hub GUI'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_hub_running' or 'close_hub'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'open_deep_link' or 'open_project'), nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false and provide no safety cues. The description only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether the Hub must be running, if it brings the window to focus, or if it fails silently when the Hub is closed). For a UI- opening tool, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short sentence that conveys the essential information with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple action, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could mention that this is a deep-link action targeting the Hub (already present) and perhaps specify that the Hub should be running or that it will open the default browser or Hub window.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('opens') and the specific resource ('Neues Projekt'-Oberfläche im Hub). It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_project' or 'open_package_install_ui', which target different interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: use when you need to create a new project via the Hub UI. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, such as using 'open_deep_link' for generic deep links or ensuring the Hub is running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that it modifies projects-v1.json and that the Hub should be closed. However, it does not explain the effect of force_hub_running or consequences of running with hub open.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with action, and includes critical conditions without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description provides essential context (hub closure, confirm requirement) but omits details on force_hub_running and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description only clarifies that confirm must be true. The other parameters (project_path, force_hub_running) are not described, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool registers an existing project into the Hub recents and writes projects-v1.json. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_project or open_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit conditions: Hub should be closed and confirm=true is required. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the prerequisite is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it runs as a job and writes NUnit-XML output, which is useful beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-destructive). It could add detail on side effects or state changes, but overall it provides relevant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, starting with the main action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it remains efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the platform and output format. It omits explanation of test_filter, categories, assemblies, version, and error handling. The tool's complexity demands more detail for complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero descriptions, and the description only adds meaning for the 'platform' parameter by listing possible values. Other parameters (project_path, test_filter, categories, assemblies, version) are not explained, leaving a gap for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs Unity tests via the test framework as a job, specifies platform options (EditMode, PlayMode, StandaloneWindows64), and mentions output format. It differentiates from sibling get_test_results by naming it as the follow-up.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to call get_test_results after running, guiding the workflow. It also lists platform choices. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context: it searches a specific source (Poly Haven) with CC0 license and returns asset slugs. No behavioral contradictions or hidden traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the return value (asset slugs) adequately despite no output schema. However, it omits parameter documentation, which is a gap for a search tool with optional params. The annotation hints partially compensate, but completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameters (query, limit) or their meanings. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for CC0 textures on Poly Haven, specifying it as a second premium source and noting it returns asset slugs for download. This differentiates it from siblings like search_pbr_materials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding textures before downloading via download_polyhaven_texture, and mentions it's often nicer for nature/stone/wood, hinting at alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other search tools or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds the requirement for confirm=true but does not elaborate on the effect of setting the path, overwrite behavior, or potential side effects. With annotations present, the description adds marginal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses, efficiently conveying the essential purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and a critical usage condition. It could be enhanced with error handling or confirmation flow details, but remains largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Editor-Installationsverzeichnis' for path and 'confirm=true nötig' for confirm, but does not specify path format, allowed values, or behavior when confirm is false.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the editor install directory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_editor_install_path (which gets the path) and set_default_project_dir (which sets a different path).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when setting the install path and mentions 'confirm=true nötig' as a requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the tool runs as a job and produces a result file, and lists the metrics analyzed. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that conveys essential information without excess words. However, it could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., separating result retrieval) and being in English for broader accessibility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and how to retrieve results, but lacks details on parameter formats or examples. Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, more parameter guidance is needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not detail individual parameters. It only provides context that the tool analyzes a scene within a project. Parameter semantics are insufficiently explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a static performance analysis of a scene, listing specific metrics (triangles, vertices, meshes, materials, lights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'profile_play' (runtime) and 'build_scene' (building).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the analysis is static ('ohne Play-Modus') and explains results are obtained via 'get_build_result'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context implies when to use this vs runtime profiling. A direct comparison to alternatives would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: headless execution, use of mcp_args and mcp_result, export to Unity directory. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). However, it could mention that scripts can be arbitrary and potentially destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a code example, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and complexity, the description covers key aspects: script execution, argument passing, return via mcp_result, export path. It lacks details on timeout meaning and error handling, but is sufficient for an AI agent to form a correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage; the description compensates by explaining that 'args' are passed after '--' via mcp_args, and provides an example using mcp_args[0]. However, 'timeout' is not explained. The description adds meaning beyond the schema but incompletely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a bpy-Python script headless in Blender to create 3D assets for Unity, listing capabilities (Mesh, Material, UV, Bake, Export GLB/FBX, Render). It distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_bake_pbr by being the generic script runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides example usage and export guidance (to Assets/), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies it's the primitive for 3D creation, but does not specify scenarios where other Blender tools are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact fields that can be set and a constraint on layer indices (8-31), going beyond the minimal annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a code example to convey all necessary information. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main settings but omits details like whether all PlayerSettings are supported, what happens on missing keys, or the return value. Given no output schema, the agent may need more context for error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the config object can contain PlayerSettings fields, quality level, tags, and layers, and provides a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets Unity project settings (PlayerSettings, quality level, tags, layers) with specific examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on building, importing, or editing assets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not indicate when to use this tool over others, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. No guidance on alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool scans for errors/exceptions, which is consistent and adds context about the source options. It does not contradict annotations and provides moderate additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a brief note on sources, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and source options but lacks explanation of the return value and the tail_lines parameter. Given no output schema, this is a gap, but the essential use case is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source values and that job_id is used with source 'job'. However, it does not explain the tail_lines parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans logs for errors/exceptions from three specified sources (editor, hub, job). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_editor_log which read the full raw log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the three source options, providing clear context on when to use each via the source parameter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of listing the tree aligns with read-only behavior. It adds value by specifying the elements returned (buttons, texts, IDs). No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed, but there is no mention of potential performance impact from the max_nodes parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should describe the return format (e.g., hierarchical text, JSON). It only says 'lists the tree' without specifying structure. Combined with missing parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (title, max_nodes) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the title parameter expects or how max_nodes affects output. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists the UIA control element tree of a window, including buttons, texts, and IDs, and specifies it is ideal for the hub. This verb+resource+context combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gui_click or gui_list_windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'ideal für den Hub,' which implies use in UI automation contexts. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it runs project-internal code and requires confirmation, enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds value: action, risk/caution, parameter format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and high complexity (arbitrary method execution), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of project_path, boolean flags, error cases, and return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains 'method' format as 'Namespace.Klasse.Methode' and that 'extra_args' are appended unchanged. Other 5 parameters (project_path, use_quit, accept_apiupdate, version, confirm) are not described, leaving agents without needed semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes ANY static editor method headless as a job. It uses specific verb 'führt aus' (executes) and resource 'statische Editor-Methode'. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting generic execution and risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires 'confirm=true' for safety, implying when to use with caution. However, it doesn't state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the sibling context and risk warning imply exclusivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the use of Blender CYCLES Bake and outputs generated, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., Blender installation), side effects (e.g., overwriting files), performance implications, or error conditions. Annotations provide no additional behavioral hints, so description carries burden but only partially addresses it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action and outputs, followed by usage example. No redundant or wasted words. Uses bold for emphasis and examples for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers inputs (preset, resolution, output directory) and outputs (texture maps) adequately given no output schema. Explains integration with Unity via build_scene. Missing return value or error handling info, but overall sufficient for a baking tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by listing preset values (brick, rock, wood, metal) and resolution examples (512, 1024, 2048). However, out_dir is only implied via Unity integration mention; no format or naming convention specified. Adds some meaning but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it creates a tileable PBR texture set via Blender CYCLES Bake, specifying output maps (baseColor, normal, roughness, ao). It distinguishes from sibling download tools by emphasizing 'eigene Premium-Texturen ohne Download' (own premium textures without download).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly suggests usage for textures not available in CC0 libraries ('für Dinge, die keine CC0-Bibliothek hat'). Provides context for when this tool is appropriate, though does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives like search_pbr_materials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying headless rendering using CYCLES engine. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It could mention prerequisites like Blender installation or side effects, but overall adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage context. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose but omits details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., Blender installed), and how to interpret the output. Given no output schema, more completeness is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaning for model_path, output_png, width, or height.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (renders a preview PNG), the resource (3D model in GLB/FBX/OBJ formats), and the context (headless in Blender CYCLES). It differentiates from siblings like blender_bake_pbr by focusing on preview rendering for visual inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: to check generated/imported 3D assets via image. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools, such as using blender_bake_pbr for baking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: node_ids conversion, token handling, and free-tier limitation. No contradiction with annotations. Beyond annotations, it discloses the batched call suggestion and file formats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, compact but informative. Minor language mixing (German/English) is acceptable. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality and critical constraints (rate limit). However, lacks explanation of return values (e.g., success, file paths) and does not detail all parameters (file_key, output_dir). With 6 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains node_ids format and token, mentions format and scale defaults, but does not describe file_key or output_dir beyond implying output_dir is the destination. Partial but incomplete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports Figma frames/components as PNG/SVG and loads them to an output directory, specifically for game UI. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on node_ids format (from Figma URL, '-' to ':'), token source (parameter or FIGMA_TOKEN), and a critical rate limit warning suggesting batching. However, it does not compare with the sibling tool figma_get_outline or specify when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. It adds the return behavior but does not disclose additional traits like potential errors or file system dependence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it omits return type or error conditions, which could be useful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds extra context by referencing the Hub-CLI command, which aids understanding. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current editor installation directory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_editor_install_path by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling list includes set_editor_install_path, implying this is for reading the path. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds behavioral details: clicks at coordinates, button default left, double click parameter. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and parameters, followed by usage context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the main action and button/double parameters, and references screenshot_desktop for orientation. However, lacks detail on how x,y coordinates relate to the screen coordinate system, which is essential for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains button options and double click, but for x and y it only says 'screen coordinates' without details on origin or measurement. Insufficient for a 0% coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it clicks at screen coordinates with button options left/right/middle, and distinguishes itself as a fallback for custom editors. Sibling tools like gui_focus_window, gui_send_keys, etc. are distinct in function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use screenshot_desktop for orientation first, and notes it's a fallback for self-drawn editors. Provides clear context but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying what fields are returned (title, class, handle, position) and that filtering is supported. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded action and no wasted words. Every part is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and one optional parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to filter, though it could be more precise about filter behavior (exact vs substring).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's parameter name_filter has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an example ('Filter z.B. 'Unity''), implying a string pattern filter, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Listet') and resource ('sichtbare Top-Level-Fenster'), lists the fields returned (Titel, Klasse, Handle, Position), and provides an example filter, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gui_click or gui_focus_window.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gui_inspect_window). The description only gives a filter example but does not clarify context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the deferred import on next editor run, which is valuable behavioral context. No additional side effects or permissions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required params, no output schema, and simple operation, the description provides sufficient purpose and behavior. It could mention whether the file is moved or copied, but the core is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies dest_rel as a relative path under Assets/ but does not explain project_path or source_path in detail. Partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it copies an external file (model/texture/audio) into the project under Assets/, specifying the destination parameter dest_rel. It distinguishes from configure_asset_import for fine-tuning, and from other tools like import_unitypackage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (import external assets) and provides follow-up guidance via configure_asset_import. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds the CLI command 'editors --installed' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words. Every part of the description adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description is complete. It tells what and how (CLI command). Minor omission: no mention of output format, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately has no parameter details, which meets the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists installed Unity editors, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'install_editor' which installs editors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied as a simple list operation, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates two output files (atlas.png and atlas.json/JsonHash), uses a specific library, recursively scans the input directory, and performs trimming and power-of-two sizing. It does not disclose prerequisites or error handling, which are minor gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the action, method, output format, benefits, and usage hint. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Packt' and avoids extraneous words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the output format and benefits but fails to explain the parameters explicitly. It also omits details like prerequisites (existing directories), handling of non-PNG files, and potential errors. This leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It implicitly mentions input and output directories by describing the pack operation, but it does not explicitly explain any of the three parameters (input_dir, output_dir, name). The 'name' parameter's default is not mentioned, and the purpose of each parameter is left to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it packs all PNGs from a folder recursively into a sprite atlas, specifying output files (atlas.png, atlas.json/JsonHash) and the underlying library (free-tex-packer-core). It distinguishes itself from other asset tools by focusing on 2D coherence and fewer draw calls, with a Unity-specific slicing hint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool (for 2D coherence and reducing draw calls) and hints at usage in Unity (slicing as Sprite Multiple). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like manual packing or other tools, though the sibling list includes some related asset creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool produces exe_path and perf_file, that real values require the running player, and that it is a build step. This adds behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences in German, front-loading the purpose and workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and workflow but lacks parameter documentation and behavioral details (e.g., asynchronicity, failure modes). With no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter meanings or constraints (e.g., frames, version). It only mentions outputs, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds a development player for profiling (step 1 of runtime profiling). It uses specific verbs (baut) and resources (Development-Player der Szene) and distinguishes from siblings like build_player and run_profiled_player by specifying it includes profiling instrumentation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines the intended workflow (build → run_profiled_player → get_profile_result) and contrasts with headless editor (no real values). It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds that it reads specific files (info-log.json, install-log.json), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that it returns log content, but it's adequately informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'which' parameter with its two options, but completely ignores 'tail_lines'. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover both parameters to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads Unity Hub logs and distinguishes between two log types ('info' and 'install'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like read_editor_log and read_job_output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use each 'which' value but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or specify when not to use this tool. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that a backup is created and that confirm=true is needed, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the action, adds backup info, then the required condition. Every part is necessary and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core behavior (removing package, backup, confirmation) is covered, but the description lacks parameter explanations and potential side effects beyond backup. For a destructive tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the confirm parameter (confirm=true required). It does not describe project_path or name, leaving their roles ambiguous for an AI agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (removes a package) and the specific resource (Packages/manifest.json). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_project_package by specifying removal and noting backup creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that confirm=true is required, guiding the agent on a necessary parameter. It implies destructive nature (backup created) but does not explicitly list contexts where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about using the Unity release API and necessity for installation, but does not elaborate further on behaviors or side effects beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and rationale. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and context well. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage with one string parameter. The description provides an example format ('6000.4.10f1') but lacks detailed constraints or allowed values, adding some but not full meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it resolves a version string to changeset and deep link via Unity release API, and explicitly links to install_editor for unlisted versions, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for unlisted versions needing install_editor, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the output is a PNG screenshot for visual inspection. However, it does not disclose details like file path, memory impact, or whether the screenshot is saved locally or returned, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's essential purpose and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool with readOnlyHint, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on where the screenshot is stored or how it is returned, but given the tool's simplicity and the expected output (PNG for inspection), it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none, and the purpose is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a desktop screenshot (PNG) for visual inspection of the current GUI state, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on different GUI interactions like clicking or listing windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for visual inspection of the GUI but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it ends Unity.exe processes without affecting the Hub, and that confirm=true is required. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though more detail on process termination behavior (e.g., unsaved changes) would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core behavior and the required parameter. Additional details about process termination implications (e.g., force quitting) would improve completeness, but it is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly states the confirm parameter must be true. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation and adds crucial operational meaning to the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (beendet laufende Unity-Editor-Prozesse) and the resource (Unity.exe), and distinguishes it from the Hub. It also mentions the required confirm parameter, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only notes the confirm requirement, but does not provide context for when to invoke stop_editor instead of close_hub or stop_job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses overwrite behavior with backup and path sandbox, adding context beyond annotations. There is a mild contradiction with destructiveHint being false despite mentioning overwriting, but the backup mitigates it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main action, backup, sandbox, and post-usage linkage to build_scene, but lacks details on error handling, success/failure signals, and content constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should detail all parameters. It explains rel_path with an example but does not clarify project_path or content, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a C# script into the project, with an example path, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_text_asset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is a core building block for game logic and that the script can later be attached via build_scene, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description discloses it builds a .controller file (job) and makes characters animated, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files or permission requirements. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but packs essential information: purpose, example spec, and integration instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every part is useful, though it could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description implies the output is a .controller file. It provides integration guidance with 'build_scene'. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, asset path). Given the tool's complexity and missing output schema, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It extensively explains the 'spec' parameter with a detailed example including parameters, states, transitions, and condition modes. The 'project_path' parameter is standard and implied by context. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds an Animator Controller with states, parameters, and transitions, making characters animated. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_animation_clip' which creates a single clip, while this builds the controller.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides specific usage instructions: after building the controller, use 'build_scene' to attach it to an Animator. It gives an example spec. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds context about the file path and example fields, but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence in German, front-loaded with essential information, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description adequately covers its purpose, the file it reads, and example output fields. No output schema, but the examples provide sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing example settings read, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads Unity Hub settings from user-settings.json with specific verb 'Liest' and lists example settings (Theme, Tray, Download-Limit, Channel), distinguishing it from sibling 'update_hub_setting' which writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading settings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like update_hub_setting. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the data source (projects-v1.json) and sorting behavior, adding value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). No contradictions. However, it does not describe the return format or scope of 'projects'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no filler. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details about what fields are returned (e.g., project name, ID, date). Given no output schema, the description could be more complete regarding return value structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'projects', the data source 'projects-v1.json', and the ordering 'by date'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_project_assets' or 'list_backups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a sorted list of projects from the hub, but lacks alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that a backup is created and that confirm=true is required. This is valuable given the destructiveHint false annotation, which might otherwise mislead an agent into thinking no changes are made.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and then adds parameter details efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the key behavioral aspects (backup, confirm requirement) and parameter constraints for version. Given the lack of output schema and general context, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention that project_path must point to a valid Unity project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'version' parameter (can be SemVer, git-URL, or file:-path) and the 'confirm' parameter (required). However, no additional meaning is provided for 'project_path' or 'name', which are self-explanatory but lack explicit clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add/change version) and the resource (Packages/manifest.json). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_project_package and list_project_packages by specifying the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates the tool is for adding or updating packages, and explicitly requires confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds value by disclosing that the operation runs as a job (asynchronous) and requires confirm=true, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence establishes the core action and async nature, the second adds parameter guidance. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, async nature, and key parameter notes. Missing prerequisites (e.g., Unity installed, hub running) are minor gaps in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning for 'version' (optional, defaults to newest installed) and 'confirm' (must be true), but does not explain 'project_path' format or restrictions, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('creates'), resource ('new, empty Unity project'), and method ('Unity.exe -createProject' as a job). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_folder' and 'open_create_project_ui' by clarifying that this creates the actual project via the editor executable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for the 'version' parameter (optional, defaults to newest) and states that 'confirm=true' is necessary. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the unique purpose makes this somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool creates a backup before deletion and demands explicit confirmation. This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent of safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two brief sentences) with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key condition. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the backup and confirmation requirement, but does not describe the return value or provide parameter details, which would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for all three parameters. The description only mentions the 'confirm' parameter and its requirement, leaving 'project_path' and 'rel_path' unexplained beyond their names. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes an asset file along with its .meta file after performing a backup. It specifies the verb 'Löscht' (deletes) and the resource 'Asset-Datei (+ .meta)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or restore.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires 'confirm=true', indicating the condition under which the tool should be invoked. It does not provide when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the requirement is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Disclosure goes beyond annotations: describes background job, large download requiring confirmation, and references for progress. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, each providing essential information without unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key aspects: background job, progress tracking, confirm needed, changeset usage. Missing some param details but sufficient for agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds value by listing modules examples and explaining changeset. However, child_modules parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it installs a Unity Editor with optional modules as a background job, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'install_editor_modules' and 'install_editor_via_deeplink'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: notes changeset for unlisted versions, confirm=true required for large download, and progress tracking via get_job_status/read_job_output. Could explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it lists processes separately for Hub and editors. No contradictions, but no further details on behavior like output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficient and directly conveys purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple listing tool with no parameters and read-only annotation. Could mention return type (e.g., process IDs or names) but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info (unnecessary). Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'listet' (lists) and the resource 'laufenden Unity-Prozesse' (running Unity processes), with specific mention of Hub and editors separately, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the narrow scope (listing processes) makes usage implied. Lacks context like prerequisites or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be mutating. The description adds valuable behavioral context: backup creation, restart requirement, and confirm=true necessity, which go beyond the annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-loaded with the purpose, followed by essential behavioral notes. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers core aspects: functionality, path syntax, side effects (backup, restart), and a crucial input requirement (confirm=true). Missing details on errors or return values, but still informative for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the dotted path format for key_path and stresses that confirm must be true, but does not describe the 'value' parameter. This partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a Hub setting value, using dotted path notation (e.g., 'download.maxConcurrentDownloads'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'get_hub_settings' by focusing on updating rather than reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that confirm=true is necessary and that changes take effect after a Hub restart. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives beyond the implicit sibling distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that the result comes from 'projectDir.json', providing source context beyond the annotation. No additional behavioral traits are needed for such a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations adequately cover the safe read behavior, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and from where.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Returns the default folder for new projects (projectDir.json)', using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('default folder for new projects'). Among siblings, there is a counterpart 'set_default_project_dir', which distinguishes this as the getter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose implies usage when the default project directory is needed, no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. This is adequate for a simple getter, but lacks deeper context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Besides readOnlyHint=true, description adds speed, offline nature, and specific metadata fields read. No destructive behavior implied, and context is sufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single focused sentence in German, well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detail. No wasted words, though slightly longer due to listing fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given single parameter and read-only nature, description covers purpose, output fields, and mode of operation. No output schema, but the return data is enumerated, making it complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (project_path) with 0% schema description coverage. Description does not explicitly describe the parameter but the context (reading project files) and parameter name imply it's the project path. Adequate but could be more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reads project metadata from files without starting editor, listing specific fields (Unity version, changeset, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling get_project_info_live which likely requires editor running.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions 'schnell, ohne Editor-Start' indicating fast offline usage. Implicitly contrasts with get_project_info_live, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates online and may be slow. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. Every word adds value: verb, resource, source, performance caveat. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, where it gets data, and performance characteristics. Annotations provide safety guarantees. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific info beyond what is in the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists Unity's promoted installable releases, with source specified as Hub-CLI and Online, and includes a caveat about duration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_installed_editors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovering installable releases and notes it may take a while, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_installed_editors or install_editor. No exclusions or context beyond the performance hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a mutation tool, and the description adds context: starts GPU-accelerated player, measures specific performance metrics, writes JSON, and self-terminates. It guides to call get_profile_result after. It does not disclose potential resource usage or job duration, but adds significant value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences pack all essential information: purpose, workflow, parameter context, and follow-up step. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key actions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is part of a multi-step process, the description covers its role, inputs, and output destination. It references sibling tools and workflow. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or job status, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: 'exe_path' is the built player, 'perf_file' is the output file, 'frames' is the count of frames to measure, 'width' and 'height' define window size. This adds meaning to all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts the player built by profile_play, measures N frames, writes performance JSON, and the player terminates. It distinguishes itself from siblings like profile_play (builds the player) and get_profile_result (retrieves results) by being step 2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly positions itself as 'SCHRITT 2 (Job)' and references profile_play (step 1) and get_profile_result (step 3), providing clear workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or exclude conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the specific information returned (hub path/version, installed editors, etc.), adding value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that covers all essential information without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns, making it complete for an agent to understand.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema (0 params, 100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, so baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a complete environment status including specific items like hub path, version, installed editors, etc. It distinguishes itself from more specific tools like check_hub_running or get_hub_settings by being comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'idealer Einstiegspunkt' (ideal entry point), suggesting it should be used first. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by specifying that only Hub processes are terminated, not editors, which goes beyond the annotation's binary flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Every word is informative, and the key requirement is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and invocation requirement, enabling correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explicitly stating that confirm must be true, providing critical semantic guidance beyond the default false in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (terminates all Unity Hub processes) and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from editors via parenthetical. This differentiates it from sibling tools like stop_editor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes the requirement 'confirm=true', which guides invocation. It implicitly tells when to use (closing Hub) and not to use (for editors), but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details behavior: it's a job that injects C# to create a scene file. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). While it doesn't explicitly state overwrite behavior or permissions, it offers rich behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured: starts with a concise summary, then uses bullet points and code blocks for details. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested objects, many optional features), the description is highly complete. It covers the full spec structure, component properties, materials, environment, post-processing, prefab instantiation, and result retrieval via get_build_result, leaving no major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description exhaustively documents the spec parameter with a full example and lists all nested fields (materials, physics, props, environment, postProcessing, etc.), adding immense value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds a .unity scene from a JSON specification via injected C# as a job. It gives a comprehensive example and details the spec structure, distinguishing it from siblings by its unique purpose of scene creation from JSON.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides extensive usage guidelines, including how to structure the spec, optional features (materials, physics, props, prefab, etc.), and references to related tools (write_script, get_build_result, download_pbr_material). It implicitly advises when to use this tool for programmatic scene creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Unity-MCP-Claude-Code MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MauricePutinas/Unity-MCP-Claude-Code/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MauricePutinas/Unity-MCP-Claude-Code)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Unity-MCP-Claude-Code MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MauricePutinas/Unity-MCP-Claude-Code/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MauricePutinas/Unity-MCP-Claude-Code)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MauricePutinas/Unity-MCP-Claude-Code'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server