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 indicates that the tool performs an 'unload' operation, implying a mutation (removal from memory), but does not specify potential side effects (e.g., whether unsaved changes are lost, if it requires the scene to be inactive, or error conditions). The description adds basic context but lacks detailed behavioral traits like safety or constraints.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage note. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the action, and the second provides critical workflow guidance—with no redundant or verbose language, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter sourcing, and basic usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens post-unload, error handling), which slightly reduces completeness for a mutation tool without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter 'name' as 'Name of the opened scene to unload (not the path). Get from scene-list-opened.' The description reinforces this by mentioning 'scene-list-opened' for obtaining the name, adding slight semantic value. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's guidance on parameter sourcing justifies a higher score.

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 ('Unload') and resource ('scene from the Opened scenes in Unity Editor'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'scene-list-opened' (which lists scenes) and 'scene-open' (which opens scenes), establishing a unique role in scene management.

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 usage guidance by stating 'Use scene-list-opened tool to get the list of all opened scenes,' which clarifies the prerequisite step for obtaining the required parameter. This directly addresses when and how to use this tool in relation to an alternative, ensuring proper workflow integration.

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