Mcp Status

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

The description adds value by enumerating the fields included in the status (scene, dirty, play/compile state, port, alias count). Since readOnlyHint is already present in annotations, the read-only behavior is covered. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether it refreshes state, requires Unity connection, or how the status is computed).

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes: 'Compact' indicates scope, and the colon-delimited list specifies exact content. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned. It lists the fields, but does not explain their meaning or possible values (e.g., what 'dirty' means, what 'port' refers to, or what 'play/compile state' looks like). For a simple status tool, this is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. Per the 0-param baseline, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter semantics. The description's focus on output fields is appropriate here.

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 identifies the tool as providing a compact MCP status with specific fields (scene, dirty, play/compile state, port, alias count). It is distinct from sibling tools focused on console output or compilation errors, though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'show'. The resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that it is for status checks. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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