Get Unity Project Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description repeating it. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by spelling out the return payload shape in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: the what, the when, and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 compensates well by listing the return fields, including the nested activeScene sub-fields. Minor residual gap: the meaning of values such as playMode (e.g., which states exist) and isDirty is left implicit.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the (empty) schema conveys; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No syntax or format detail is needed.

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') and resource ('project info') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (name, path, version, active scene, play mode), which separates it from generic object/component getters. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that overlap on returned data, such as unity_get_scene_info and unity_get_play_mode.

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?

'Use when: starting a session to orient yourself in the project' gives a clear triggering context, which is exactly the right guidance for an aggregate orientation call. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer when the agent only needs play-mode or scene data.

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