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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Instantiates') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether instantiation is reversible, potential side effects on scene hierarchy, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides essential usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the primary action.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides a helpful usage tip, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, or what happens after instantiation. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, more context would be beneficial.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining relationships between parameters or special constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Instantiates prefab') and target location ('in the current active scene'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject-create' or 'gameobject-duplicate' that might also create objects in scenes, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific prefab instantiation tool is uniquely appropriate.

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 guidance on how to obtain the necessary prefab asset path ('Use assets-find tool to find prefab assets'), which is helpful context for usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gameobject-create' for non-prefab objects or 'assets-prefab-create' for creating new prefabs, missing explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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