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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get information'), it doesn't describe what information is returned, format of the response, whether it requires specific editor state, or any limitations. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, 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 distinct purposes: the first states the tool's function, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most critical information (what the tool does) 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While it clearly states the purpose and provides excellent sibling differentiation, it fails to explain what information is returned or how the parameters affect that return, leaving too much undefined for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description provides no information about any of the 6 boolean parameters (includeGameObjects, includeTransforms, etc.), leaving their purpose and effect completely unexplained. This creates a major gap in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 verb ('Get information about') and resource ('current Selection in the Unity Editor'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes from its sibling tool 'editor-selection-set' by mentioning it for setting selection, which helps differentiate functionality within the toolset.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'Use 'editor-selection-set' tool to set the selection.' This clearly defines the boundary between this read operation and its write counterpart, offering perfect contextual usage instructions.

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