Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing important behavioral traits: search prioritization logic (exact name match first, then substring matches), difference between online/offline modes, and that results include available versions and installation status. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear, front-loaded information about the tool's purpose, followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second provides usage context, third describes return values, fourth specifies search scope, fifth explains prioritization, sixth details online/offline behavior.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining what results include (available versions and installation status) and search behavior. It could be slightly more complete by describing the exact format of returned results, but given the 100% schema coverage and detailed behavioral disclosure, it's mostly adequate.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about online/offline mode behavior but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 searches for packages in both Unity Package Manager registry and installed packages, specifying the scope (both registry and local packages including Git, local, and embedded sources). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'package-list' by focusing on search functionality rather than listing installed packages.

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 ('to find packages by name before installing them') and provides context about online vs offline modes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for search operations, not installation/removal like 'package-add' or 'package-remove'.

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