easyar_unity_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool does not launch Unity, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose other aspects like required permissions, side effects, or whether it reads from registry or filesystem. The description is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 ('Inspect local Unity executable configuration and common install locations without launching Unity.') with no redundancy. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks details about what specific information is returned (e.g., paths, versions) and does not mention if the tool outputs structured data or plain text. For a simple tool, it is passable but not fully comprehensive.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but according to guidelines, baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not hinder understanding and keeps the tool's simplicity clear.

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 inspects local Unity executable configuration and install locations. The verb 'inspect' and resource are specific, and the phrase 'without launching Unity' distinguishes it from tools that might launch Unity. However, it could be more precise about what configuration details are inspected.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where alternative tools like 'easyar_inspect_unity_project' might be more appropriate. The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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