physics2d

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

The description lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with write actions. However, the description lacks details on side effects (e.g., permanent changes to physics settings), authorization needs, or limitations (e.g., physics engine must be enabled). With only a list of action names and one-line summaries, transparency is low.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by a bullet list of actions. It front-loads the core purpose. While the list is long, it is necessary given the tool's complexity. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Slightly verbose but efficient for the scope.

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?

The description covers all actions but lacks context on how to sequence them, prerequisites (e.g., existing GameObjects for adding components), or return values. Without an output schema, the description does not explain what each action returns. For a complex tool with 35 parameters, more guidance on typical usage patterns would improve completeness.

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 every parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond listing action options. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides the necessary semantics, and the description does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 starts with 'Manage Unity 2D Physics: rigidbodies, colliders, raycasts, joints, effectors.' clearly stating the tool's purpose and domain. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'physics' by explicitly mentioning 2D, which is the key differentiator. The list of actions further specifies what can be done, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 implicitly guides usage by labeling the tool as '2D Physics,' which tells an agent to use this for 2D physics tasks and likely the sibling 'physics' for 3D. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons with alternatives. The list of actions itself gives context for which action to pick based on the task.

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