unity_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: entries before the last script reload are dropped, so the buffer is volatile and truncated. It does not say the call is otherwise a safe read, does not flag that the clear option destroys the buffer, and says nothing about volume limits or ordering. Partial behavioral coverage for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the resource identity front-loaded and the retention caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the schema and there is no filler.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the data is and its retention lifetime. The remaining gap is the destructive side effect of clear and the absence of any routing to sibling tools, which slightly undersells the tool set as a whole.

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 description coverage is 100% – clear, limit (with bounds and default), and types (with the full enumeration of filter tokens) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource (recent Unity console entries captured by the bridge) and enumerates the entry kinds it contains, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is a noun-phrase resource description rather than a verb+resource statement, and it draws no boundary against the sibling tools (unity_status, unity_refresh), so it stops short of a 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?

Nothing states when to call this versus unity_status or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent can infer 'use this to read console output,' but that inference comes entirely from the noun phrase, not from guidance in the text.

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