Unity API Communicator MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.4
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear resource-action pairs (e.g., asset_create vs. asset_delete, camera_capture vs. camera_screenshot), but some overlap exists, such as console_errors and console_compilation both handling error reporting, which could cause minor confusion. Overall, the descriptions help differentiate them effectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as asset_create, camera_list, and gameobject_transform. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse for agents.
Tool Count2/5
With 62 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, leading to potential cognitive overload and inefficiency. While the domain (Unity API) is broad, the tool set feels bloated and could benefit from consolidation or modularization into sub-servers.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for Unity project management, including asset handling, scene manipulation, camera controls, console logging, and game object operations. It supports full CRUD/lifecycle workflows with no apparent gaps, ensuring agents can perform complex tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 62 of 62 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Set material' with an HTTP POST, implying a mutation but not detailing effects like whether it overwrites existing materials, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with 'Set material', but it wastes space on redundant details like the HTTP method and endpoint, which don't aid an AI agent. While concise, it lacks efficiency as the content doesn't earn its place in clarifying tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what 'material' entails, how it interacts with gameobjects, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds no semantic information beyond referencing 'JSON parameters' in the schema. It doesn't explain what fields are expected (e.g., material name, properties) or their meaning, offering minimal value over the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set material (POST /api/gameobject/material)' restates the tool name 'gameobject_material' and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but doesn't specify what 'Set material' means in context. It doesn't explain what resource is being modified or distinguish it from sibling tools like material_color, material_float, material_properties, material_shader, or material_texture, leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple material-related tools (e.g., material_color, material_shader) and gameobject tools (e.g., gameobject_components, gameobject_transform), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleadingly incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Set parent' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, effects on child objects, or error handling. The mention of 'POST' hints at a write action but lacks depth needed for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Set parent'), followed by technical details (endpoint and category). It avoids unnecessary words, but the lack of meaningful content limits its helpfulness, keeping it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the vague 'Set parent', missing details on inputs, outputs, and behavioral context needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, but the schema description defers to the tool description ('Refer to the tool description for expected fields'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'params' should contain (e.g., gameobject IDs, parent relationships). Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate by clarifying parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set parent (POST /api/gameobject/hierarchy) [Category: gameobject]' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'gameobject_hierarchy' as 'Set parent' without clarifying what 'parent' means or what resource is being modified. It mentions the HTTP method and endpoint but lacks a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gameobject_transform or gameobject_active.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to gameobjects (e.g., gameobject_create, gameobject_delete, gameobject_transform), the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Select all' with a POST endpoint, implying a mutation action but without details on what gets selected, permissions required, side effects, or response format. For a tool with no annotations and a POST method (suggesting potential state change), this is inadequate, as it omits critical behavioral traits like whether it modifies scene state or requires specific user context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Select all'), followed by technical details. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a POST tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested input parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'all' refers to (e.g., objects, assets, scenes), behavioral context, and expected outcomes. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more guidance on usage and results, but it falls short, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema states (a 'params' object with JSON parameters), failing to clarify expected fields or usage. However, since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select all (POST /api/selection/all) [Category: selection]' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'selection_all' as 'Select all' and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination (e.g., 'select all objects in the current scene') and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'selection_clear' or 'selection_set', leaving the agent guessing about what 'all' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling selection tools (e.g., 'selection_clear', 'selection_set', 'selection_get'), leaving the agent with no basis for choosing this tool over others in the selection category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Rename an asset' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing assets), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It's minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error handling, and with no output schema, it provides no insight into return values. For a tool that modifies assets, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format nuances or naming restrictions). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename an asset' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (asset), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like asset_move or asset_delete beyond the specific action. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what type of asset or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like asset_move (which might handle path changes). The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions required, whether creation is reversible, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 'Create' implies mutation, but no safety or side-effect information is included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first states the core purpose, the second provides useful examples. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether assets are saved immediately or require additional steps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing some assetType examples, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults beyond schema, or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new asset') and resource ('in the project'), with specific examples of asset types. It distinguishes from siblings like asset_delete or asset_move by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prefab_create or gameobject_create is provided. The description mentions supported asset types but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to dependent resources. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation, what errors might occur, or what the return value contains. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that permanently removes resources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'path' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by its path' but doesn't provide additional context about path format requirements, validation rules, or edge cases beyond what's already in the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an asset from the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject_delete' or 'scene_close', which also perform deletion operations on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete locked assets), or relationships with sibling tools like 'asset_move' or 'assets_list' for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but doesn't explain critical behaviors like whether it overwrites existing assets, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or affects references. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as path format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Move') and resource ('an asset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like asset_rename or asset_delete, which also modify asset locations or states, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the asset to exist or the destination folder to be valid, nor does it refer to sibling tools like asset_rename for similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields. The 'only provided fields are changed' clause adds some value but leaves major behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral context about partial updates. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it differs from similar configuration tools. The partial update clarification is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of context needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds the important semantic detail that 'All fields are optional — only provided fields are changed,' which clarifies the partial update behavior. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's parameter definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Player settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'build_settings' or 'build_platforms', but the specific focus on 'Player settings' provides reasonable differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_settings' or other configuration tools in the sibling list. It mentions that 'only provided fields are changed,' which is useful but doesn't address broader usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies mutation ('configure') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid camera name), or side effects. It mentions properties but not how partial updates are handled or default values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates key properties without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 7 parameters. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors), usage prerequisites, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing property types (FOV, clip planes, etc.), which aligns with schema parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges, interactions (e.g., orthographicSize only matters if orthographic is true), or examples beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('configure') and target ('existing camera's properties'), listing specific properties like FOV, clip planes, orthographic mode, background color, and depth. It distinguishes from siblings like camera_create (creation) and camera_capture/camera_screenshot (capturing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential configuration overlaps in other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., camera must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating cameras), or compare with sibling tools like camera_create or gameobject_component_add for similar functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file system changes), error handling, or output behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves system-level operations like capturing and saving images.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, file path) or address potential complexities like file permissions or capture failures, which are crucial for a screenshot tool in a development environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'path' documented as 'Output file path' and a default value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and the method ('using ScreenCapture'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'camera_capture' or 'camera_configure', which might have overlapping functionality in a camera/imaging context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'camera_capture' and 'camera_configure', there is no indication of differences in context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a component, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the removal is reversible, error handling (e.g., if component doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the purpose efficiently without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens on success/failure), doesn't explain return values, and provides minimal context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'componentType') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., componentType must match Unity type names). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a component from a GameObject'), specifying the resource and operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gameobject_component_add' by focusing on removal rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other component-related tools like 'gameobject_components'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the GameObject must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove certain core components), or direct alternatives like 'gameobject_delete' for removing entire GameObjects, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens if the GameObject doesn't exist, or error handling for invalid tags. It mentions the tag 'must be defined in Unity Tag Manager' in the schema, but this critical constraint isn't reinforced in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set the tag'). There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on permissions, error conditions, side effects, or what success looks like. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without risking errors (e.g., using undefined tags). The schema covers parameters but not behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name', 'tag') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain naming conventions, tag validation, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('tag of a GameObject'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gameobject_find_by_tag' by focusing on modification rather than querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other GameObject modification tools like 'gameobject_layer' or 'gameobject_active'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., GameObject must exist), constraints (e.g., tag must be predefined), or related operations (e.g., use 'gameobject_find_by_tag' to locate objects by tag). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'sets' a color property (implying mutation), but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the material doesn't exist, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose statement followed by a clarifying detail about defaults and value ranges.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether the change is immediate or requires a save, what permissions are needed, or how this interacts with other material operations. Given the complexity of material editing in a game engine context, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the default property is '_Color' (already in schema) and that color values are 0-1 floats (already in schema with min/max constraints). No additional semantic context is provided beyond what's in the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a color property on a material' specifies the verb (set) and resource (material color property). It distinguishes from sibling tools like material_float, material_shader, and material_texture by focusing specifically on color properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from gameobject_material which might also affect materials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use material_color versus material_float for other material properties, or when to use gameobject_material for material assignment. There's no discussion of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool changes a material's shader, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., breaking material properties), or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from examples, but overall it's appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, or return values. Given the complexity of modifying materials in a game engine context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (materialPath and shaderName). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing shader name examples ('Standard', 'Universal Render Pipeline/Lit'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change the shader') and target ('of a material'), with specific examples of shader names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like material_color, material_float, and material_texture by focusing on shader assignment rather than other material properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from material_properties which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., material must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like material_properties or gameobject_material. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('Set') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies assets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details about defaults. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or dependencies, which are crucial for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting the default property '_MainTex' and its purpose ('albedo/diffuse'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a texture on a material') and specifies the target resource ('material'), which is distinct from sibling tools like material_color or material_float. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from gameobject_material or material_properties, which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like material_color or material_properties. It mentions a default property but does not explain scenarios for using this tool over others, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('apply all overrides'), suggesting changes to the original prefab asset, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies assets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of applying overrides to a prefab asset (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like what 'overrides' entail, confirmation of changes, error scenarios, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'Name of the prefab instance in the scene'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('apply all overrides') and the target ('from a prefab instance back to the original prefab asset'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prefab_create' or 'prefab_unpack', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose 'prefab_apply' over 'prefab_unpack' or other prefab-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates and saves a prefab file, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it modifies the original GameObject, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if the GameObject doesn't exist), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or usage context to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral details like whether the original GameObject is affected. Given the complexity of creating a prefab asset, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a prefab asset') and resource ('from an existing scene GameObject'), with the specific output format ('.prefab file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prefab_apply', 'prefab_instantiate', and 'prefab_unpack' by focusing on creation from a GameObject, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'asset_create' or other asset-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'prefab_create' over 'asset_create' for general asset creation, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'prefab_apply' for modifying existing prefabs. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'breaks the prefab link,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., impact on nested objects or scene state). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter behavior with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explains the mode options, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what 'breaking the prefab link' entails operationally, potential errors or prerequisites, and the return value or confirmation of success. This leaves significant gaps for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and mode with enum values). The description adds minimal value by briefly explaining the modes ('OutermostRoot unpacks the top level, Completely unpacks all nested prefabs'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('unpack a prefab instance') and the effect ('breaking the prefab link'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like prefab_apply or prefab_create. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., prefab_instantiate might also involve prefab manipulation), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions two modes but doesn't explain scenarios for choosing one over the other or when unpacking is preferable to other prefab operations like applying or creating. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the scene must be 'loaded', which is a prerequisite, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., unsaved changes in current scene), permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (setting active scene) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error conditions, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond implying the path refers to a 'loaded scene', which is already covered. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('set') and resource ('a loaded scene as the active scene'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scene_active' (which might retrieve the active scene) or 'scene_open' (which loads a scene), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance, stating only that the scene must be 'loaded' but not when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scene_open' (which might load and set active) or 'scene_active' (which might query). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, offering little help for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering and return values (name, path, type), but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers filtering and return values in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying return values (name, path, type). However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps for a read-only listing tool with two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by type and folder, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states, such as default behaviors or interaction effects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('assets in the project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject_list' or 'camera_list' that also list different resource types, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as filtering needs or context-specific scenarios. It mentions filtering by type and folder but does not specify when this is necessary or preferable over other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it doesn't address how the data is returned or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get current build settings') and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of build settings and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists what is retrieved but doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for the agent to handle the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on what the tool retrieves rather than inputs. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current build settings'), listing key attributes like active platform, enabled scenes, development mode, and player settings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'build_platforms' or 'build_player_settings' by covering multiple aspects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving build settings, there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'build_player_settings' or 'project_info', leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid material paths), or what the output format looks like (beyond mentioning 'values, types, and names'). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('List all shader properties') and includes key details ('current values, types, and names') in a compact form, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output structure ('values, types, and names'), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is incomplete for robust usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'materialPath' fully documented in the schema as 'Asset path to the material'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all shader properties') and the target resource ('a material'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling material-related tools like material_color, material_float, material_shader, or material_texture, which appear to modify specific properties rather than list them all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the material must exist), nor does it compare it to sibling tools that manipulate material properties (material_color, material_float, etc.), leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Select and ping' implies both a selection action and some kind of notification/visual feedback ('ping'), the description doesn't explain what 'ping' means in this context, whether this requires specific permissions, or what happens if the asset path is invalid. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes a helpful example format for the parameter, with zero wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, for a tool with no annotations and potentially complex 'ping' behavior in a development environment context, more detail about what 'ping' entails and error conditions would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by its path' and providing an example format in parentheses, but doesn't offer additional semantic context about path requirements or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Select and ping') and resource ('an asset in the Project window'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'selection_get', 'selection_set', or 'selection_focus', which might have overlapping selection functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to selection (e.g., selection_get, selection_set, selection_focus) and assets (e.g., assets_list, asset_create), there's no indication of when this specific 'select and ping' operation is appropriate versus other selection or asset tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how the data is formatted, or if there are any rate limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all available build platforms') and adds additional context ('and the currently active one') without any waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details like response format or usage context, which are important for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, making it efficient and focused on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('build platforms'), including the scope of listing 'all available' and 'the currently active one'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_start' or 'build_switch_platform' by focusing on listing rather than execution or modification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a project to be loaded, or compare it to related tools like 'build_settings' or 'build_switch_platform' for context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the fallback behavior and quality comparison, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a blocking operation, what permissions are needed, if it affects game performance, what happens if the camera doesn't exist, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably creates files and interacts with Unity's rendering system, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place - first sentence states purpose and technology, second adds quality comparison and fallback behavior. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (presumably a file path or success indicator), doesn't mention error conditions, doesn't describe the RenderTexture behavior in detail, and doesn't provide context about Unity-specific requirements or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the fallback behavior for camera name but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, validation rules, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool captures camera views using RenderTexture and mentions it's higher quality than screenshot. It distinguishes from sibling 'camera_screenshot' by specifying the technology used and quality difference. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'camera_configure' or 'camera_list' which are also camera-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing camera captures with higher quality than screenshots, and mentions fallback behavior to main camera. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'camera_screenshot' or other camera tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists cameras with settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires scene access permissions, if it returns real-time or cached data, or how it handles empty scenes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all cameras') and adds specific details about included settings. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns (cameras with specific settings), but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, data types) and behavioral context (e.g., permissions, performance). For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing, but it's not a 5 as it doesn't compensate for any schema gaps (none exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'cameras in the scene', specifying what settings are included (FOV, orthographic, depth, clip planes). It distinguishes from siblings like camera_capture or camera_configure by focusing on listing rather than modifying or capturing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from assets_list or gameobject_list, which are also listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when you'd want to list cameras (e.g., for inspection before configuration) or when not to use it (e.g., if you already know the camera ID). It also doesn't reference sibling tools like camera_configure or camera_create as alternatives for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not cover aspects like whether it's read-only, if it affects the console buffer, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., counts as numbers or structured data) and behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that interacts with system logs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters exist (e.g., time range). Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('error and warning counts from the console log buffer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'console_log' or 'console_logs', which might provide similar console-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'console_log' or 'console_logs', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for retrieving counts but lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the clone's position but omits critical details: whether cloning is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to components/children, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate names). For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('duplicate/clone a GameObject') and adds only essential context about position.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, side effects, and behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of cloning in a game engine context, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the original GameObject's position is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('duplicate/clone') and resource ('GameObject'), specifying that the clone appears at the same position as the original. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gameobject_create (which creates new objects) and gameobject_transform (which modifies existing ones).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the GameObject must exist), compare to similar tools like prefab_instantiate, or indicate when cloning is preferred over other creation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), return value information, and explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by providing examples of property names (e.g., _Metallic, _Smoothness, _Glossiness) but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a float property') and target resource ('on a material'), with specific examples of properties. It distinguishes from sibling tools like material_color or material_texture by focusing on float properties, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through examples (e.g., _Metallic, _Smoothness) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like material_color or material_properties. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a prefab instance but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies scene state permanently, what happens on invalid prefab paths, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Instantiate a prefab in the current scene') and adds necessary clarification ('Creates a prefab instance linked to the original asset'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, instance ID), error conditions, or side effects. For instantiating objects in a scene, more behavioral context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond the schema's descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Instantiate a prefab') and the target ('in the current scene'), specifying it creates a prefab instance linked to the original asset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prefab_create (creating new prefabs) and prefab_unpack (breaking prefab links).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prefab_create or gameobject_clone. The description mentions the current scene but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., scene must be open) or exclusions (e.g., cannot instantiate in closed scenes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't clarify what happens after clearing (e.g., does it return to a default state, trigger UI updates, or have side effects), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what 'clear' means in practice) or tie into the broader context of selection management tools, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the target ('the current editor selection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'selection_get' or 'selection_set', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'selection_set' or 'selection_get'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a selection must exist first, or when clearing is appropriate versus modifying the selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about potential delays ('may take time') and the underlying process ('Unity reimports assets'), which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens to ongoing builds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by important behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (changing build platforms with potential reimports), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or integration with other build tools, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear enum for the 'platform' parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain platform differences or dependencies). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'switch' and resource 'active build platform', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_platforms' or 'build_player_settings', which might provide related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'This may take time as Unity reimports assets,' which implies a performance consideration but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_platforms' or 'build_player_settings'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'optional' parameters but doesn't disclose what happens if parameters are omitted (defaults apply), whether the camera becomes active, if it's added to the scene hierarchy, or any permission requirements. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists parameter categories without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation with 6 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and parameter categories but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output information. For a creation tool in this context, more completeness would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by grouping parameters into categories ('optional position, FOV, and orthographic mode') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new Camera GameObject') and resource ('in the scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like camera_list, camera_configure, or camera_capture. It specifies the exact type of object being created (Camera GameObject) rather than just 'camera'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open scene), compare to similar creation tools like gameobject_create, or indicate when orthographic vs perspective cameras are appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires console listening to be started first'), which adds useful context, but fails to describe other key behaviors such as what 'captured console logs' entails, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get captured console logs') followed by a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it appropriately sized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (involving console operations with a prerequisite), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings. This results in an adequate but incomplete understanding for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'type' documented as 'Filter by type: Log, Warning, Error, Exception (omit for all)'. The description doesn't add any further meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'captured console logs', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like console_clear, console_compilation, console_errors, console_log, console_start, and console_stop, which all relate to console operations but serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Requires console listening to be started first', indicating a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like console_clear or console_errors, nor does it specify exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a mutation (changing state), it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on child objects), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Enable or disable a GameObject') and adds clarifying terminology ('set active/inactive') without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, with zero wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, errors) and usage context. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'active'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints for 'name' or default behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Enable or disable') and the target resource ('a GameObject'), with the parenthetical 'set active/inactive' providing precise terminology. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like gameobject_create, gameobject_delete, or gameobject_transform by focusing on activation state rather than creation, deletion, or transformation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing GameObject), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like gameobject_list for finding objects or scene_setactive for scene-level activation. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the optional save behavior, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what happens if no scene is open (when path is omitted), whether closing is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects like losing unsaved changes if save is false. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, with the core purpose stated upfront ('Close a scene') and the optional behavior clearly added. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and optional save behavior, but for a mutation tool that could discard changes, it should ideally include more about consequences, error conditions, or interaction with other scene tools to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (path and save) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the save parameter's optionality ('Optionally save before closing'), but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close a scene') and resource ('scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scene_open, scene_save, and scene_setactive by focusing specifically on closing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all scene-related siblings beyond the basic verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'Optionally save before closing,' suggesting this tool is for closing scenes with or without saving changes. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like scene_save (for saving without closing) or scene_setactive (for switching scenes without closing), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions saving behavior but lacks details on permissions, overwrite risks, file format, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by optional parameter context. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter intent but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output expectations. Given the simplicity (1 param, 100% schema coverage), it's complete enough for basic use but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('path'). The description adds marginal value by clarifying that omitting the path saves in place and mentioning 'Save As' context, but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Save') and resource ('the active scene'), with an optional 'Save As' functionality. It distinguishes from siblings like scene_close, scene_create, and scene_open by focusing on persistence rather than lifecycle management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from asset operations like asset_create or asset_move, which could also involve saving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when saving the current scene, with an optional path for 'Save As' scenarios. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., asset_create for non-scene assets). The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisite mentions like needing an open scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 100-entry limit, which is useful context, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific Unity editor states, potential performance impacts, or error handling. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs essential information: action, source, and limitation. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about return format, error conditions, or integration with Unity's compilation workflow. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more contextual information would be beneficial for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get compilation errors and warnings') and the source ('from Unity's internal log system'), with a specific scope ('up to 100 entries'). It distinguishes from siblings like console_logs or console_errors by specifying it's for compilation-related issues. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all console-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage during or after compilation processes in Unity, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like console_logs or console_errors. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'no parameters required', which covers basic safety and usage aspects. However, it doesn't describe what kind of components are listed, the format of the output, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, scope).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'List components' states the action, '(read-only, no parameters required)' adds critical behavioral context, and '[Category: gameobject]' provides organizational context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and behavioral traits but lacks details about output format, scope (e.g., all components vs. filtered), and how it relates to sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what's returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly notes 'no parameters required', which aligns perfectly with the schema and provides helpful confirmation to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('components'), and specifies it's read-only with no parameters. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject_list' or 'gameobject_hierarchy' that might also list game object-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gameobject_list' or 'gameobject_hierarchy'. It mentions a category ('gameobject') but doesn't explain how this tool fits into the broader context of game object operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'This may take a long time', which is a useful behavioral trait (long-running operation). However, it doesn't cover other aspects like whether it's destructive (likely yes, as it creates output), permissions needed, error handling, or what happens to existing builds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second adds context about scenes, third warns about duration. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers purpose and a key behavioral trait (long runtime). However, for a build tool that likely performs significant operations, it lacks details on output format, success/failure indicators, or side effects, leaving gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'outputPath' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start a build') and resource ('with the current build settings'), specifying it uses enabled scenes from Build Settings. It distinguishes from siblings like build_settings (which configures) or build_switch_platform (which changes platform), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all build-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when ready to execute a build with current settings, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like build_switch_platform or prerequisites (e.g., needing configured settings first). It mentions 'Uses enabled scenes from Build Settings', which provides some context but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool logs messages and supports three types, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether logs persist across sessions, what happens if the console isn't available, or any rate limits. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential supporting detail about log types. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter types adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (like side effects or constraints) that would be important for safe usage, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (message and type with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as message length limits or type-specific behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Log a message') and target resource ('to the Unity Console'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_clear, console_errors, and console_logs by focusing on writing rather than reading or clearing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the supported log types (Log, Warning, Error), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like console_errors (which likely reads errors) or console_logs (which likely reads logs). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Add') but does not specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible (e.g., via 'gameobject_component_remove'), potential side effects (e.g., component dependencies), or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise example list of component types. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter examples but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how it relates to 'gameobject_component_remove'). This is adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing example component types (e.g., Rigidbody, AudioSource) that illustrate valid inputs for 'componentType', which enhances understanding beyond the schema's generic description. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a component') and target resource ('to a GameObject'), using a precise verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gameobject_component_remove' by specifying the opposite operation, and from 'gameobject_components' by focusing on addition rather than listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through the example component types (e.g., Rigidbody, BoxCollider), suggesting when to use it for common Unity components. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gameobject_create' for new objects or 'prefab_instantiate' for prefab-based components, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('name, active state, and layer for each match'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like whether the search is case-sensitive, if it includes inactive GameObjects, performance implications, or error handling for invalid tags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the return format. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple query tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the return values, which compensates for the lack of output schema, but doesn't cover behavioral nuances like search scope or error cases, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'tag' well-documented in the schema (including examples like 'Player, MainCamera, Enemy'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Find all GameObjects with a specific tag') and resource ('GameObjects'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gameobject_list' (general listing) or 'gameobject_tag' (tag management). It precisely defines the scope and operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gameobject_list' (which might list all GameObjects without filtering) or 'selection_get' (which might retrieve selected GameObjects), leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mutation action ('Set') but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether this affects rendering or physics), error conditions, or what happens if the layer is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action, resource, and parameter constraints. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of modifying GameObject properties, more context would be beneficial for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that 'layer' accepts numbers 0-31 or names, but doesn't provide additional context like valid layer names beyond examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the layer') on a specific resource ('GameObject'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gameobject_tag or gameobject_transform that modify other properties. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying the tool sets GameObject layers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like gameobject_tag for tags or gameobject_transform for position/rotation. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a mutation operation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the GameObject doesn't exist, whether changes are immediate or batched, or error conditions. The partial update hint ('Only provided fields are modified') adds some context, but significant gaps remain for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about partial updates. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and partial update behavior, but lacks information about error handling, return values, performance characteristics, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of GameObject manipulation, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions that only provided fields are modified, which clarifies the partial update behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the transform') and resource ('GameObject'), with precise scope ('position, rotation, scale'). It distinguishes from siblings like gameobject_create or gameobject_delete by focusing on modifying existing objects rather than creating or deleting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying GameObject transforms, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like gameobject_active or gameobject_layer. It mentions 'Only provided fields are modified' which hints at partial updates, but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'read-only' (indicating no mutations) and 'no parameters required' (simplifying usage). However, it doesn't cover aspects like response format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'endpoints' specifically refers to (e.g., API endpoints, tool endpoints). The description adds basic context but leaves gaps in behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and category. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output (e.g., format of discovered endpoints) and broader context (e.g., how this fits with sibling tools). For a discovery tool, more information on what 'endpoints' entails would enhance completeness, but it's adequate for the simple structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description reinforces this with 'no parameters required', which adds clarity beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately addresses the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover all endpoints' with the qualifier 'read-only, no parameters required'. It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('endpoints'), and includes the category '[Category: discovery]' for context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_info' or 'status', which might also provide discovery-like information, though the 'all endpoints' scope is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'no parameters required', suggesting it's a straightforward call for endpoint discovery. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'project_info' for project details or 'status' for system status), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only' (indicating safety) and 'no parameters required' (simplicity), which are helpful. However, it doesn't describe what information is returned, potential errors, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get project info') and efficiently adds qualifying details in parentheses. Every element earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and safety profile but lacks details on return values or error conditions. For a no-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly states 'no parameters required', which aligns with the schema. This provides adequate semantic clarity, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema's empty structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'project info', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on project-level information rather than assets, builds, scenes, or other entities. However, it doesn't specify what type of project information is returned (metadata, settings, status, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'read-only' and 'no parameters required', suggesting it's a simple retrieval tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'status' or 'discover', nor does it mention prerequisites or specific contexts where this tool is most appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool clears data, implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible, or what happens to the cleared data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Clear') and target resources. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple destructive action), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., effects, permissions) that would be helpful for an agent, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Clear') and the target resources ('the Unity Console and the internal log buffer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like console_log, console_errors, or console_logs which read rather than clear console data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for clearing console/log data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., console_log for viewing logs). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stops listening, implying it ends a process, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to queued messages, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. However, for a tool that likely interacts with an active process (listening), more context on behavior, side effects, or dependencies would improve completeness, especially without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could briefly note the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop listening') and the resource ('Unity Console messages'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'console_start' (which starts listening) and 'console_logs' (which retrieves logs), avoiding tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by suggesting it stops an ongoing listening process, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'console_clear' for clearing logs) or prerequisites (e.g., that 'console_start' must have been called first). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all currently loaded scenes') and specifies attributes without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output format (listing scenes with specific attributes). However, as a read-only tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return structure, making it minimally complete but with gaps in transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the lack of parameters without adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('currently loaded scenes') with specific attributes (name, path, dirty state, active status). It distinguishes from siblings like scene_active, scene_close, scene_create, scene_open, scene_save, and scene_setactive by focusing on listing loaded scenes rather than modifying or managing them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving information about loaded scenes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_active (which might check or set active status) or scene_list (if it existed). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action ('Open/load') and the path requirement, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if path is invalid), or what happens to the current scene. It adds some context but misses key behavioral traits for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Open/load an existing scene') and provides essential details (asset path example). There's zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action and parameters. However, for a mutation tool that loads scenes, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., scene state changes), error scenarios, or return values, leaving gaps in completeness for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description mentions the path parameter with an example, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra context on path validation or mode implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Open/load') and resource ('an existing scene'), specifying it's identified by its asset path. It distinguishes from siblings like scene_create (creates new), scene_close (closes), and scene_save (saves), making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'existing scene' and the path format, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_create for new scenes or scene_setactive for switching active scenes. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose but lacks behavioral details such as whether it requires editor focus, if it returns real-time data, error conditions, or performance implications. It does not disclose any constraints beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the current editor selection') and specifies the details concisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full contextual use. It explains what is retrieved but not the format or structure of the return data, which could hinder an agent's ability to process the output effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and the exact resources ('current editor selection: active GameObject, active object, and all selected objects with their types'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'selection_all', 'selection_clear', and 'selection_set' by focusing on retrieving the current selection details rather than modifying or clearing selections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to retrieve current selection information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'selection_all' (which might list all selectable objects) or 'selection_set' (which modifies selection). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the core action (selecting GameObjects) and an optional behavior (adding to selection), it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to existing data, error handling, or what happens if the GameObject name doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the optional behavior without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple selection tool with two parameters. It covers the basic action and an optional parameter but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or return values, which are important for a tool interacting with an editor environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and addToSelection). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'addToSelection' parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Select a GameObject by name') and resource ('GameObject in the editor'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like selection_clear, selection_all, and selection_get. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage with the 'Optionally add to existing selection' clause, which implicitly guides when to use the addToSelection parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like selection_all or selection_get, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating 'read-only' (indicating no mutations) and 'no parameters required', which clarifies safety and simplicity. However, it doesn't describe output format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information ('List categories') followed by key details in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no wasted sentences, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values or error handling. It covers basic behavior but doesn't fully prepare an agent for what to expect after invocation, leaving room for improvement in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description compensates by explicitly stating 'no parameters required', adding clarity beyond the schema. This is helpful for an agent to understand it's a simple, parameterless call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('categories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on categories rather than assets, gameobjects, or other resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'assets_list' or 'camera_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the phrase '[Category: discovery]', suggesting it's for discovery purposes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover' or other list tools. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by stating it's 'read-only' (indicating safety) and 'no parameters required' (simplicity), which are crucial behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with every word earning its place: it states the action, resource, key behavioral traits, and even includes a category tag without redundancy. There's no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a simple status check. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on what 'server status' includes (e.g., uptime, metrics) or the return format, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly notes 'no parameters required', adding clarity beyond the empty schema. This compensates well, but since there are no parameters, it can't fully demonstrate semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_info' or 'console_logs' that might also provide status-related information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning it's 'read-only' and has 'no parameters required', which suggests it's a simple, safe operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_info' or 'console_logs', leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates objects in the 'active Unity scene' (contextual constraint) and supports setting initial transform and parent (behavioral detail). However, it lacks information on permissions needed, whether creation is undoable, error conditions, or what happens if parentName doesn't exist, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific capabilities in the second. Both sentences are dense with information (e.g., primitive types listed, transform and parent support) without any wasted words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what the tool does and key parameters but omits behavioral details like error handling, return values, or side effects, which are important for a creation tool in a game engine context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'type' parameter is for primitives (Cube, Sphere, etc.) or can be omitted for empty GameObjects, which provides semantic context beyond the schema's technical description. It also mentions 'initial transform and parent' to group parameters, though it doesn't detail all six individually.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new GameObject'), the target resource ('in the active Unity scene'), and distinguishes capabilities from siblings by specifying it can create primitives or empty GameObjects, unlike gameobject_clone or gameobject_transform which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating GameObjects in Unity scenes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like gameobject_clone (for duplicating existing objects) or prefab_instantiate (for instantiating prefabs). It mentions primitive types and empty GameObjects but doesn't clarify trade-offs or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the object and all its children will be destroyed, indicating a destructive, irreversible operation. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or what happens if the name doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies the scope (destruction of children). There is zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the action, parameter, and behavioral impact (destruction of children). However, it lacks details on error cases or return values, which would be helpful for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('GameObject from the scene by name'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'asset_delete' (for assets) and 'gameobject_clone' (for copying). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting GameObjects by name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'asset_delete' (for assets) or 'gameobject_clone' (for copying). It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error conditions, or performance considerations. The description is accurate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the specific data returned. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what is returned but does not cover format details, potential errors, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with no structured metadata, more context could enhance usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details beyond the schema, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the description focuses on output semantics instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently active scene', specifying exactly what information is retrieved: name, path, build index, dirty state, and root object count. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scene_loaded (which lists loaded scenes) or scene_setactive (which changes the active scene).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when information about the active scene is needed, such as checking its state or properties. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_loaded or project_info, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavioral difference between the two modes (replacement vs additive loading), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like whether this operation requires specific permissions, what happens to unsaved changes in the current scene, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation, scene ID).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence explains the key parameter behavior. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the core functionality and parameter implications well, but doesn't address important aspects like what happens to the current scene's state, whether there are permission requirements, or what the tool returns upon success. Given the complexity of scene creation in a game engine context, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context about parameter behavior that goes beyond the schema. While the schema has 100% coverage and documents both parameters with descriptions and defaults, the description explains the practical implications of the 'mode' parameter choices ('Single' replaces current scene, 'Additive' adds alongside existing scenes'), which helps the agent understand the semantic impact of parameter selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'new empty scene', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling scene tools like scene_open, scene_close, scene_save, and scene_setactive by focusing on creation rather than manipulation of existing scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use different modes ('Single' vs 'Additive'), explaining that 'Single' replaces the current scene while 'Additive' adds alongside existing scenes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_open or scene_save, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (name, active state, tag, layer, child count) and the hierarchical depth constraint, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes all necessary details (action, resource, hierarchy depth, return values) without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete—it covers purpose, behavior, and output format. However, it lacks some contextual details like error cases or performance considerations, which could be beneficial despite the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that no parameters are needed and implicitly confirming the tool's scope (active scene, 2-level hierarchy), which compensates for the lack of parameters, warranting a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all root GameObjects'), the resource ('in the active scene'), and the scope ('with a 2-level hierarchy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gameobject_hierarchy' by specifying the limited depth and from 'gameobject_find_by_tag' by not filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'active scene' and '2-level hierarchy', which helps differentiate it from broader hierarchy tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gameobject_hierarchy' or 'selection_get', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (focusing camera on selected GameObject) and provides a helpful real-world analogy. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if no GameObject is selected), performance implications, or error conditions, which would be valuable for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. The 'equivalent to pressing F' analogy adds valuable context without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. The analogy to a keyboard shortcut adds practical understanding. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens if no GameObject is selected or describing the visual result in the Scene View.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Focus the Scene View camera'), the target ('currently selected GameObject'), and provides a helpful analogy ('equivalent to pressing F'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like selection_get, selection_set, or camera_configure by specifying its unique camera-focusing function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: it should be used when a GameObject is selected to focus the camera on it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no GameObject is selected) or name alternative tools for related functions, though the 'equivalent to pressing F' analogy provides practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of enabling future message capture, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., resource usage), error conditions, or what 'listening' entails operationally, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste—each sentence earns its place by stating the action and its prerequisite role. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for its purpose. It covers the 'why' (enabling console_logs) but lacks details on behavioral aspects like how to verify it worked or handle failures, which could be useful despite the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, maintaining the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Start listening') and resource ('Unity Console messages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like console_stop, console_logs, and console_clear. It explicitly defines the tool's role in enabling console message capture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Required before console_logs will capture anything'), establishing a prerequisite relationship with console_logs. It implicitly suggests alternatives like console_stop for stopping listening, making the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![unity-api-communicator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SamDreamsMaker/unity-api-communicator-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SamDreamsMaker/unity-api-communicator-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![unity-api-communicator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SamDreamsMaker/unity-api-communicator-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SamDreamsMaker/unity-api-communicator-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SamDreamsMaker/unity-api-communicator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server