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. While it implies a mutation action ('Set... as active'), it lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if this affects other scenes), error conditions, or what 'active' means in context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely changes editor state.

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 essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, errors) that would be important for a mutation tool in an editor context, leaving room for improvement.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'sceneRef' parameter as a scene asset reference. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to guidelines, this results in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Set... as the active scene') and identifies the target resource ('specified opened scene'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'scene-open' or 'scene-create', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 by specifying that the scene must be 'opened' and references the 'scene-list-opened' tool to obtain the necessary input. This gives practical guidance on when and how to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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