Get C# Job Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the polling model, the three terminal/intermediate states, and what output/logs contain. It stops short of stating timeout or backoff behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the state model, then the usage condition, then the return semantics. Three tight sentences with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: output is the JSON of the 'return' value and logs are Debug.Log lines from Run(). Combined with the state enumeration, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces its origin ('job_id returned by unity_execute_code'), which adds marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Poll a code-execution job') and enumerates the three result states (running | done | error). This clearly distinguishes it from unity_execute_code (which starts the job) and unity_get_console_logs (which reads the console directly).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after unity_execute_code returned a job_id') and what to do on the running state ('wait and poll again'). The triggering condition and the predecessor tool are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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