unity_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important side effects — asset import and script recompilation — which tells the agent this is a mutating, potentially disruptive action. However, it omits whether the call blocks until recompilation finishes, how long it may take, or that a domain reload can interrupt subsequent calls, which matter for sequencing.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the effect. No filler, nothing redundant, and it fits the triviality of a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool this is close to complete: the agent knows what it does and when to call it. The only missing piece is timing/blocking behavior, which matters because a recompile can invalidate subsequent tool calls.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 mechanism (AssetDatabase.Refresh) and its concrete outcome (external file changes imported, scripts recompiled), which is far more precise than a generic 'refresh'. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (unity_status, unity_console, unity_execute_menu), but the operation is unambiguous enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use it when files changed outside the editor. It does not state when not to use it, nor mention that unity_execute_menu could invoke equivalent menu items, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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