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 and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it writes a JSONL summary file, outputs aggregated statistics with percentiles, supports two modes (fixed-frame and continuous), auto-loads threshold fences, and takes screenshots on violation. It doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with core functionality and outputs, followed by mode support and additional features. It's efficient with two sentences, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating outputs from behaviors). Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 complexity (profiling with multiple components and modes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral details but lacks information on return values, error cases, or performance implications. It's adequate for understanding what the tool does but incomplete for full operational use without additional context.

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 all 5 parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does 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 tool performs 'Multi-frame continuous Profiler sampling' with specific components (snapshot, GC, hotpath, call counts) and outputs (JSONL summary file, aggregated statistics). It distinguishes from sibling tools like profiler-snapshot, profiler-gc-alloc, and profiler-hotpath by combining these functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with profiler-frame-hierarchy, which might be related.

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 for profiling with different modes (fixed-frame vs. continuous) and mentions auto-loading threshold fences and taking screenshots on violation, which suggests when it might be triggered. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the individual profiler-* siblings or other performance tools, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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