Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a usage guideline. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response structure, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the hierarchy depth or bounding box implications). Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'retrieves the list of root GameObjects in the specified scene.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('root GameObjects'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'object-get-data' or 'gameobject-find', which might have overlapping functionality. The mention of 'scene-list-opened' is helpful but not a direct sibling differentiation.

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: to get root GameObjects in a scene, with a prerequisite to use 'scene-list-opened' for opened scenes. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'object-get-data' or 'gameobject-find'), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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