init_unity_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the cache file location (.unity-mcp-cache.json), automatic reuse, and performance characteristics for large projects. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects on existing project files beyond creating the cache.

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?

Three short paragraphs with clear front-loading: purpose first, workflow second, performance last. Every sentence earns its place, making it 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?

The description covers purpose, workflow, prerequisites, and performance. It lacks explicit return value details, but there is no output schema and the tool is an initialization routine, so the provided information is mostly sufficient.

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%, with both parameters already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 initializes a Unity project for MCP use by building a GUID→asset name cache from .meta files. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the required setup step for parse_unity_file and browse_unity_project.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call ONCE per project before using parse_unity_file or browse_unity_project, and explains reuse and when to force rescan. This gives clear when-to-use and workflow context, directly guiding the agent.

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