get_physics_stack

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at the categories of returned data but says nothing about whether it scans the whole project, how expensive the call is, whether 'script hits' are file paths or just counts, or what happens when no physics package is installed. For a discovery-style tool with zero structured behavioral metadata, that is thin.

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?

A single compact sentence with the most concrete item (the package names) leading. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it only names three vague output categories. Terms like 'module hints' and 'script hits' are not defined, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or decide confidently between this and get_physics_settings.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema coverage baseline applies and no parameter explanation is required. The description does not introduce spurious or undocumented inputs.

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 enumerates the contents the tool surfaces (Unity Physics and Physics Core 2D packages, module hints, Rigidbody/physics script hits), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb and no statement of scope, so an agent must infer that it 'reports on' the project's physics stack. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_physics_settings, which sounds adjacent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_physics_settings. The agent is left to guess whether this is the package-inventory tool or the configuration tool.

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