easyar_create_sample_runner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'creates a Unity Editor script' but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., file creation location, naming convention, whether it overwrites existing files), permissions needed, or what the script does beyond opening scenes. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative by including key behavioral details (e.g., script name, location) while remaining concise. It serves its purpose but misses an opportunity for compact completeness.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's action (creating a script), the description should clarify what the script does, its naming, and any dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'easyar_list_samples' for sample ID). It does not address these, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%: both 'projectPath' and 'sampleId' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline is 3, so no extra points.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a Unity Editor script that opens EasyAR sample scenes by name.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Unity Editor script'), and the action ('opens EasyAR sample scenes') distinguishes it from siblings like 'easyar_create_build_settings_helper' or 'easyar_create_mono_behaviour'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to list samples first with 'easyar_list_samples') or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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