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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is 'useful for debugging and monitoring,' it fails to describe key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what format/log source it accesses, potential performance impacts, or any limitations on log availability. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise—just two short sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Retrieves Unity Editor logs') and efficiently adds value with the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (log format, structure), potential errors, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that retrieves system logs with multiple filtering options, more context about the return data and operational limits would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all four parameters well-documented in the schema itself (maxEntries, logTypeFilter, includeStackTrace, lastMinutes). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves Unity Editor logs' specifies the verb (retrieves) and resource (Unity Editor logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on logs rather than assets, game objects, or other Unity components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential log-related tools that might exist in other contexts.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for debugging and monitoring Unity Editor activity,' suggesting when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (none of the sibling tools appear to be log-related), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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