list_unity_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans and returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, error handling, or the nature of 'grouping'. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, and output. No filler or redundancy, and it even includes a workflow hint about parse_unity_file.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output type. It could clarify what 'grouped' means and mention default/error behavior, but combined with the rich schema it is nearly sufficient for typical use.

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% and all six parameters have rich descriptions (e.g., exact matching, default values). The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Scan'), names the exact resource (directory for Unity asset files with .prefab, .unity, .asset), and clarifies the output (grouped list with absolute paths). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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?

The description implies the tool is used to discover files for subsequent parsing ('ready to use with parse_unity_file'), offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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