unity_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'runs tests' by explaining the exact failure criteria: a missing XML is a FAIL, and any result="Failed" is a FAIL. It also states that it returns parsed per-platform totals, giving the agent insight into what to expect from the tool's output and how to interpret results.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the action, the failure evidence semantics, and the return type. There is no repetition of schema information or fluff. It is perfectly front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently structured.

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 is largely complete for a test-running tool: it covers the operation, critical behavioral details (XML-based failure detection), and return summary. The main gap is the lack of context for 'workspace' and 'queue_wait_timeout_s,' but these are auxiliary parameters with defaults. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return structure in the description. Overall, it is adequate and informative.

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 for parameter meaning. It does clarify 'platform' by tying it to EditMode/PlayMode tests, but it gives no explanation for 'workspace' or 'queue_wait_timeout_s.' The schema only provides names and defaults, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of these parameters. Thus, compensation is only partial.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run EditMode and/or PlayMode tests.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_build or unity_compile, which handle other Unity CI tasks. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

While the description does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use,' it provides clear context by specifying the test modes (EditMode/PlayMode) and the per-platform totals. This implicitly signals when the tool is appropriate—whenever Unity tests need to run—but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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