unity_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the action and a method. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing scene), whether the operation blocks or queues (despite a queue_wait_timeout_s parameter), or any error/return behavior. The word '(Re)generate' hints at possible overwriting, but this is left implicit.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide usage context. No wasted words; every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and the main prerequisite, but it is incomplete regarding parameter roles and behavioral details like queueing and potential overwrites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, yet the description still leaves gaps for a three-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It partially explains `target` by referring to a 'target's scene' and pointing to unity_targets for listing names, but it provides no context for `workspace` or `queue_wait_timeout_s`. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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: '(Re)generate a target's scene' with a specific mechanism ('invoking its configured scene_method'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_build, unity_test, and unity_shot by focusing on scene generation from code.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Only for projects that author scenes from code' and provides a direct instruction for a necessary preliminary step: 'Call unity_targets to list target names.' This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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