Tuanjie Game View Resolution

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description reinforces this by saying it 'changes' the resolution, and it further clarifies that get_resolution is a read and set_resolution is a mutation. It adds the pass-through behavior of extra parameters, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or required editor state beyond what annotations already imply.

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 no wasted words: the first states the core operation and lists actions, and the second notes pass-through behavior. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 additionalProperties=true and no output schema, the description should document the action-specific parameters and what each action returns. It provides the action enum but leaves set_resolution's required values unspecified and gives no return expectations, so an agent has to guess or look elsewhere.

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 0% and the description merely restates the action enum that is already in the schema. The line about action-specific parameters being 'passed through unchanged' acknowledges their existence but never names or describes them, such as width/height for set_resolution, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call from the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reads or changes the Game View resolution') and enumerates the three supported actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool can do. The action list differentiates it from broader Unity tools like unity_screenshot or unity_editor.

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 supported actions imply the tool is for getting, setting, or listing resolutions, which is a clear enough context for straightforward use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling such as unity_screenshot would be more appropriate. The 'passed through unchanged' clause is useful but is not usage guidance.

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