figma_verify_unity_prefab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Statically verify' suggests a non-destructive read-only operation, and the listed verification aspects add context about what is checked. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether any output files are written, or the exact return structure beyond what the output schema might provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently enumerates the verification scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and a concise list of verified components, the description covers the core function well. The only gaps are lack of explicit usage timing and alternative guidance, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of structured data, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by associating 'own metadata' and 'source map' with verification targets, but it does not add new meaning or clarify parameter formats beyond the schema definitions. The value added is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb 'statically verify' and explicitly lists the resources involved: Prefab YAML, ownership metadata, source map, sprites, and file ids. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'generate' and 'inspect' by conveying a verification purpose.

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 term 'generated Prefab' implies the tool is intended to be used after a generation step, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives or provide prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the naming and wording.

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