playcal_meta

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no Editor is required, which is a real operational constraint. It does not state whether the tool is purely read-only or can repair damage, nor whether it needs the project to be closed, leaving the safety profile ambiguous for a tool that scans project files.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action first and clarifying detail in parentheses. It is dense but every element (defect types, timing, no-Editor constraint) earns its place; the nested parenthetical is slightly hard to parse but not wasteful.

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

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

For a two-optional-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is scanned and the key constraint (no Editor). The remaining gap is the report shape and whether any fixing occurs, but the schema's 'lines per kind' hint partially signals grouped output.

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 (limit, project) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the default project root or how limit interacts with the grouped output.

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 and resource: it finds .meta and GUID damage (copied, moved, missing .meta files, missing scripts) in a Unity project. The scope is concrete and enumerates the defect classes it detects. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as playcal_assets or playcal_doctor, which likely also inspect project structure.

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?

'before Unity imports it, without an Editor' gives a clear timing/context cue: run this pre-import and without a running Unity Editor. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to use instead for related asset or health checks (playcal_assets, playcal_doctor).

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