Reconnect Unity

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, providing some safety and mutability context. The description adds that port 0 or omitted triggers auto-discovery from port files, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing connection is closed) beyond the annotation hints, so the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single direct sentence plus a short parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains zero redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple tool behavior, the description covers all essential aspects. The combination of the clear purpose and the port auto-discovery note is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. Annotations further round out the context, so nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about port handling ('Port 0 or omitted = auto-discover from port files'), which clarifies how connection settings are resolved even though no explicit parameters exist. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the auto-discovery mechanism, though it is slightly ambiguous given the empty schema.

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 tool's action ('Reconnect') and resource ('Unity'), making its purpose unambiguous. The verb 'reconnect' distinguishes it from siblings like 'sync_unity' or 'discover_tools', which are about synchronization or discovery rather than connection. It is specific and actionable.

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 implies the tool is for re-establishing a connection to Unity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after a disconnect) or when to prefer an alternative. The note about port auto-discovery gives operational context but no comparative guidance against siblings. While the name and description are self-explanatory, explicit usage scenarios or exclusion criteria are absent.

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