Unity AI Bridge

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 describes the search functionality and filter syntax but omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'search'), mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of results. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the filter string content. There's no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating search capabilities from filter details.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on result format (e.g., what data is returned, pagination, error handling), behavioral constraints (e.g., performance implications, limits), and differentiation from similar tools. For a tool without structured output or annotations, the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the filter string can contain 'names, labels or types (classnames)', but the schema provides more detailed syntax (e.g., 'l:', 't:', globbing). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search the asset database using the search filter string. Allows you to search for Assets.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('asset database'/'Assets'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'assets-find-built-in', which appears to be a similar search function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'assets-find-built-in' or explain scenarios where this search tool is preferred over other asset-related tools (e.g., 'assets-get-data' for retrieval without search). Usage is implied through the description of search capabilities but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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