Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is for inspection (implying read-only) and mentions optional serialization depth, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the component doesn't exist. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and returns, second gives usage context, third provides sibling tool reference. Every sentence earns its place and 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?

For a read operation with 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context. It could better explain return format or error handling, but given the schema completeness and clear inspection purpose, it's mostly adequate. The lack of output schema means some gaps remain in understanding what 'detailed information' specifically entails.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'optionally serialized fields and properties' which aligns with includeFields/includeProperties parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific Component on a GameObject', specifying it returns component type, enabled state, and optionally serialized fields/properties. It distinguishes from sibling 'gameobject-find' which lists components, and 'gameobject-component-modify' which would modify rather than inspect.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to inspect component data before modifying it' and 'Use 'gameobject-find' tool to get the list of all components on the GameObject.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names a specific alternative tool for related functionality.

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