scan_unity_asset_store_cache

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It merely says 'scan and sync' but does not disclose whether the sync is destructive (e.g., deletes missing packages), what permissions are required, or what happens if the cache directory is absent or malformed. The side effects on the DB are undefined.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and outcome, making it easy to parse. There is zero fluff, and the sentence length is appropriate for a tool statement.

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 that the tool has a nested parameter structure and a database-syncing side effect, the description is too sparse. While an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description still fails to cover the sync's behavior (e.g., force semantics, filter usage, whether it adds/removes entries) or its relationship to sibling tools. This is a significant gap for a non-trivial operation.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The required 'req' object, along with its 'force' and 'filter' sub-fields, is completely unexplained. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it scans the Unity Asset Store cache directory and syncs the .unitypackage list to the DB. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_unity_packages, which likely just list packages from the DB, and request_rescan, which may trigger a rescan without the DB sync aspect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools like request_rescan or list_unity_packages.

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