Unity MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. It mentions what information is retrieved but not the format or limitations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific attributes. Every word earns its place with no waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does (retrieves project info with specific attributes). However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it's complete without redundancy.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Unity project info') with specific attributes mentioned (path, Unity version, build scene count). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on project metadata rather than listing scenes or reading documentation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_build_scenes' or 'read_agent_docs'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and description but not explicitly stated.

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