browse_unity_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that browsing shows asset counts, that it requires initialization but can auto-init, and it positions the tool within a workflow. However, it does not detail the exact return structure or whether the operation is purely read-only, though browsing implies this.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear numbered workflow. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context through the workflow and usage guidance. It could mention the tree-like nature of the output explicitly, but the information provided is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in sequence.

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 already has 100% description coverage and clear parameter descriptions (projectPath, depth, subPath). The description adds workflow context but does not elaborate further on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Browse the Unity project folder tree with asset counts.' This uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('Unity project folder tree'), and the workflow list differentiates it from sibling tools like listing assets or parsing files.

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 explicitly provides a workflow ('init_unity_project → browse_unity_project → list_unity_assets → parse_unity_file') and states when to use this tool: 'Use this to navigate large projects and find the subfolder containing the assets you want to work with.' This gives clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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