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. While it mentions controlling application state, it lacks critical details: what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on other Unity operations, or error conditions. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.

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: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, and key information is front-loaded.

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 purpose and usage guidance but lacks behavioral transparency for a state-control tool. It's complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for safe, informed use without additional context about Unity Editor behavior.

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 both parameters (isPlaying, isPaused) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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: 'Control the Unity Editor application state' with specific actions 'start, stop, or pause the playmode'. It distinguishes from sibling 'editor-application-get-state' by contrasting control vs. get operations.

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 usage guidance: 'Use editor-application-get-state tool to get the current state first', establishing a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among other siblings.

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