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 key behaviors: it analyzes local lights, skips directional lights, and returns specific metrics (influence bounds, spatial density, probe placement parameters). However, it lacks details on performance implications, error handling, or output format, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first explains the tool's function and output, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity (analyzing lights for probe placement), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by detailing the output structure or any limitations, which would help compensate for the lack of output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'cellSize' parameter thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, adhering to the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: analyzing local lights (Point, Spot, Area) to return influence bounds, spatial density, and probe placement parameters. It specifically distinguishes itself by noting that directional lights are skipped, and it differentiates from sibling 'lightprobe-generate-grid' by positioning itself as a precursor.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this before 'lightprobe-generate-grid' to determine optimal spacing.' It also provides context by specifying that directional lights are skipped, which helps in understanding when not to rely on it for those light types.

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