unity_shot

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 covers prerequisites (build, screen recording, unlocked screen), the return type (PNG path), and a usage caveat (read in a throwaway subagent). It does not mention side effects like process spawning or cleanup, but the disclosed information is substantial and non-contradictory.

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 and fully front-loaded: it states purpose first, then prerequisites and return behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations. While the output schema exists and the description mentions the PNG path, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a significant gap in the context needed to invoke the tool correctly. The agent would not know what target or workspace mean, especially given the sibling unity_targets and unity_build tools.

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 explain the parameters (target, workspace, queue_wait_timeout_s). It does not mention any of these parameters or map them to concepts like the build target or workspace path. The agent is left without any guidance on how to fill in the parameters correctly.

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: 'Launch the built player and screenshot its window by CGWindowID.' This identifies the resource (built player's window) and the operation (screenshot), and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_build or unity_status, 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.

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

The description provides clear prerequisites: 'Needs an existing build, the macOS Screen Recording grant, and an unlocked screen.' This tells the agent when the tool can be invoked (after a build, with permissions). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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