Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool performs a refresh/update operation, which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects on other assets, or performance impact. The description adds some context about triggering conditions but lacks details on execution 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 concise with two sentences that directly address usage scenarios. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage. It explains when to use the tool but lacks information on what the refresh entails, potential errors, or return values, leaving some gaps for a mutation operation.

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 fully documents the 'options' parameter with enum values and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 with the verb 'Refreshes' and resource 'AssetDatabase', explaining it updates the database when files change outside Unity API. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings but implies distinction from asset-specific tools like 'assets-copy' or 'assets-modify' by focusing on database refresh rather than direct asset manipulation.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use it if any file was added or updated in the project outside of Unity API' and 'Use it if need to force scripts recompilation when '.cs' file changed.' This clearly specifies when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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