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 explains the tool's purpose and output format ('top N most expensive functions'), but lacks details about performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks details about the return format, error handling, or performance implications. It's complete enough for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'top N' and 'sorted by self time or total time', which are already covered in the parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('returns'), resource ('top N most expensive functions in a profiler frame'), and scope ('sorted by self time or total time'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'profiler-frame-hierarchy' by noting this is 'without reading the full hierarchy'.

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 for when to use this tool ('useful for quickly identifying performance bottlenecks'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the implied contrast with 'profiler-frame-hierarchy'.

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