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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves an opened scene but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects (e.g., locking the scene). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a prerequisite step. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's scope or limitations.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively in context with sibling tools.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or edge cases), meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Save') and resource ('Opened scene to the asset file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'assets-prefab-save' or 'scene-create', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific scene-saving tool versus other asset-saving operations.

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 some usage guidance by mentioning 'Use scene-list-opened tool to get the list of all opened scenes,' which implies a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, alternatives (e.g., when to use 'assets-prefab-save' instead), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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