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 does an excellent job describing the tool's behavior: scanning specific light types, using raycasting and Physics.CheckSphere for placement, implementing density gradients, and creating a LightProbeGroup GameObject. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a write/mutation operation.

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 structured and concise - four sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds critical information: the core functionality, technical implementation details, light type handling, and prerequisite usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial behavioral context. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. The only gap is not explicitly describing the return value or output format, which would be helpful given the absence of an 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 ('Generate Light Probes in a 3D grid') and resource ('within local light influence ranges'), with additional technical details like density gradient and light type scanning. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'lightprobe-analyze' by stating when to use that tool first.

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 ('Use 'lightprobe-analyze' first to get recommended spacing values') and when not to use it ('skips Directional lights'). It also mentions the alternative tool by name, giving clear context for tool selection.

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