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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.