Unity API Communicator MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.