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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the search order (Prefab-first, scene-second), that it returns children and Components preview, and that it operates on the 'current active scene'. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, performance implications, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Finds' but not explicit).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specifics on search scope and return values. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., combining the last two sentences).

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage context, and return content, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. Without an output schema, more explanation of return values 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'gameObjectRef' formats or 'hierarchyDepth' usage further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Finds specific GameObject') and resource ('by provided information in opened Prefab or in a Scene'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'gameobject-create' or 'gameobject-modify'. It precisely defines the search scope (Prefab-first, then scene) and return content (GameObject information, children, Components preview).

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 context on when to use this tool: for finding GameObjects in specific contexts (opened Prefab or active scene). It explains the search priority (Prefab over scene) but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'assets-find' for assets, 'editor-selection-get' for selected objects).

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