Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions capturing metrics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact, or how the snapshot is generated (e.g., real-time vs. aggregated). The description is functional but lacks critical operational details.

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 action and key metrics, followed by a utility statement. It's appropriately sized with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more informative about when to use it.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete for a simple tool. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with other profiler tools. For a performance tool, more context on data freshness or limitations would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 captures a performance snapshot with specific metrics (FPS, memory usage, draw calls, triangles), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like profiler-frame-hierarchy or profiler-hotpath by focusing on a quick overview rather than detailed analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling profiler tools.

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 implies usage context ('quick overview of current performance status') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like profiler-frame-hierarchy for frame analysis or profiler-hotpath for bottleneck identification. It provides general utility but lacks specific guidance on tool selection.

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