unity_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the read-only nature ('List') and the lock-free guarantee, which are important for an agent to assess side effects. It does not describe error cases or file-location details, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key lock-free constraint without any wasted words.

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 is simple, and the output schema likely explains return values. However, the complete absence of parameter guidance and the lack of explicit usage alternatives make the description less complete than ideal. The lock-free note adds valuable context, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.

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 schema has one parameter ('workspace') with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent receives no guidance on what the parameter controls (e.g., which project's targets to list) or how the default empty string behaves, leaving a critical semantic gap.

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 a specific action ('List'), the resource ('build targets'), and the source ('unity-mcp.toml'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like unity_build or unity_compile by being a listing operation, and the lock-free note adds a unique scoping constraint.

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 inspecting available build targets, and the explicit 'Never takes the lock' provides practical guidance that it is safe to call concurrently with builds. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, leaving some room for inference.

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