Unity Reflect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses reflection, is live, and actions are for inspection only (e.g., 'Member summary (names only)'). 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.

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

The description is very concise: three short paragraphs. First paragraph states purpose and use case. Second paragraph lists three actions with their requirements. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the three possible actions and their parameter requirements. The output schema exists, so describing return format is unnecessary. The 100% schema coverage and sibling context further reduce the need for additional detail.

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%, with descriptions for each parameter. However, the description goes beyond schema by explaining the purpose of each action and which parameters are required for that action (e.g., 'Requires class_name' for get_type). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect Unity's live C# API via reflection.' It also lists specific actions (get_type, get_member, search) and their inputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_code or manage_gameobject which perform different operations. The verb 'verify existence before writing C# code' is specific and actionable.

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?

The description explains when to use: 'before writing C# code to verify that classes, methods, and properties exist' and that 'training data may be wrong or outdated.' It implies when not to use (e.g., not for executing code or modifying objects) but does not explicitly list alternatives. The context is clear and helpful.

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