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 for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it reveals that 'Even private methods are available' (important behavioral trait for reflection), and it clarifies the relationship with the sibling tool for calling methods. However, it doesn't mention potential performance implications of searching all assemblies or error conditions.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral context and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second adds critical behavioral information about private methods, and the third provides essential sibling relationship guidance. Zero wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the tool's purpose, behavioral traits (private method accessibility), and relationship to the sibling tool. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (method metadata, error formats) or potential limitations, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions filtering by 'name, class name and parameters' but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Find method') and resource ('in the project using C# Reflection'), specifies scope ('all assemblies in the project'), and distinguishes from its sibling 'reflection-method-call' by stating 'Use 'reflection-method-call' to call the method after finding it.' This provides specific differentiation from the sibling tool.

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 provides when to use this tool ('to find method by its name, class name and parameters') and when to use an alternative ('Use 'reflection-method-call' to call the method after finding it'). This gives clear guidance on the tool's role versus its sibling.

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