parse_unity_prefab

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

The description discloses the deprecated status and the automatic cache-loading behavior. With no annotations, it adds some transparency, but it does not mention return structure, side effects, or error behaviors, leaving gaps in the tool's safety and outcome profile.

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 effectively front-loaded with the deprecation notice. The WORKFLOW section adds relevant context without redundancy, making every sentence purposeful 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?

As a deprecated alias, the description appropriately points to parse_unity_file for core behavior, but it doesn't explain return values or deeper operational details, especially without an output schema. The workflow note adds some completeness, but the description remains dependent on the sibling tool for full context.

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 fully describes both filePath and config parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-level details. This meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for parse_unity_file, which clarifies its purpose by referencing the canonical tool. However, it does not independently describe what parsing entails, relying on the sibling tool's definition for full clarity.

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 instructs users to adopt parse_unity_file for new clients, and provides a workflow step to call init_unity_project first. This directly distinguishes when to use this tool vs alternatives and offers clear contextual guidance.

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