Get GameObject Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that it returns exactly one object by path, but says nothing about failure modes (invalid path), or cost of traversal. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability, then the path syntax, then the sibling hand-off. Zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the returned fields (transform, tag/layer, components), which is sufficient for a simple read tool whose annotations already cover safety. Only the absence of error/path-not-found behavior keeps it short of complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with examples and an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's path example ('Level/Enemies/Orc') duplicates the schema's own example, adding no new semantics.

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

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

States a specific verb (get full details), a specific resource (one GameObject), and the scoping constraint (by hierarchy path), plus enumerates the returned contents (transform, tag/layer, components list). It distinguishes itself from unity_find_gameobjects, but the 'components list' overlap with unity_get_components is left unaddressed.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use unity_find_gameobjects first when searching, then call this with the resolved path. That is clear context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over unity_get_components or unity_get_hierarchy, and no exclusion conditions.

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