list_unity_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions supported features (state/publisher/asset_name filters, pagination, preview count) but does not explain how they behave, result ordering, pagination defaults, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose and key features without any filler. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with a nested request object and multiple parameters, yet the description covers only high-level features. With no annotations and no usage context, it leaves significant gaps about when to use it, limitations, and behavioral details. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.

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 0%, but the description names the high-level concepts (state/publisher/asset_name filters, pagination, preview count) that map to the schema's parameters. It adds some meaning beyond the schema, but does not explain parameter defaults, bounds, or exact semantics. The schema itself provides titles and constraints, so the description partially compensates.

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 it returns a list of unity_imports and enumerates key features (filters, pagination, preview count). The verb+resource are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_packs or list_assets, though the resource name is distinctive.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists capabilities but does not mention exclusions, recommended scenarios, or why one would choose this over list_packs or list_assets.

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