Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists packages and returns specific information, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. While it covers basic behavior, it lacks details on error conditions or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent. No unnecessary details are included.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it returns. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned data) and error handling, which could be useful for an agent despite 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (sourceFilter, nameFilter, directDependenciesOnly). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('List all packages'), identifies the resource ('installed in the Unity project (UPM packages)'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'package-add' and 'package-remove' by focusing on listing rather than modifying packages. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (name, version, source, description), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this to check which packages are currently installed before adding or removing packages.' This directly contrasts with siblings 'package-add' and 'package-remove' by positioning it as a prerequisite check, offering clear context for selection among related tools.

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