Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it performs AssetDatabase.Refresh() automatically, returns a GUID on success, and specifies strict parent folder existence requirements. It misses details like error handling or permissions needed, but covers essential operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, an example, usage context, and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, prerequisites, example, purpose, side effects (AssetDatabase.Refresh()), and return value. It could improve by detailing error cases or linking to sibling tools, but covers most essential context given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'inputs' parameter. The description adds context about the parent folder path format and example, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates a new folder') and resource ('in the specified parent folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like assets-move or assets-delete. It provides concrete details about the parent folder requirement starting with 'Assets', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 it ('Use it to organize scripts and assets in the project') and provides context about parent folder prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools like assets-create for non-folder assets.

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