Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's dual behavior based on the presence of gameObjectRef, mentions pagination, and implies read-only operations (listing). However, it doesn't detail error handling, permissions, or rate limits, which are relevant for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by pagination details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage modes and constraints, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (dual behavior, pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining the two usage modes and pagination. However, it lacks details on return format, error cases, or performance considerations, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no structured output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the dual usage of gameObjectRef and mentioning pagination, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 dual purpose: listing components attached to a specific GameObject (with type name + instanceID) when gameObjectRef is provided, and listing all available C# component type names in the project when omitted. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gameobject-component-add' by specifying its role in providing component types for that tool.

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 explicitly defines when to use each mode: use with gameObjectRef to list components on that object, and omit it to list available component types for 'gameobject-component-add'. It provides clear context for both scenarios without exclusions, making it easy to choose the correct usage.

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