unity_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the build action and the configured build_method, but doesn't disclose whether the build is long-running, whether it blocks, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are needed. The 'queue_wait_timeout_s' parameter hints at queueing but the description doesn't explain this 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second gives a practical pointer. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description doesn't cover the workspace parameter or the timeout semantics, leaving gaps for a build tool. It does provide the essential build target and lists a prerequisite, but for the tool's complexity (3 params) and no annotations, more context would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the 'target' parameter by pointing to unity_targets, but it doesn't clarify the 'workspace' parameter or the 'queue_wait_timeout_s' parameter. The timeout's meaning is only inferable from its name, and workspace is completely unexplained.

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 action ('Build the standalone player') and the resource ('for a target'), with the mechanism 'via its configured build_method'. It distinguishes from unity_compile by specifying a 'standalone player' artifact, 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for building a target and advises calling unity_targets to list names, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like unity_compile, nor any exclusions or context on when not to use it.

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