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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Executes') but doesn't clarify what 'execute' entails—whether it triggers UI changes, runs scripts, modifies project state, or has side effects like requiring specific permissions or being irreversible. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of executing a Unity menu item (which could involve UI interactions, project changes, or script execution), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that likely performs mutations in a development environment.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'menuPath' well-documented in the schema (including an example). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or common use cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Executes') and the target resource ('a Unity menu item by path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like notify_message or run_tests), which would require more specific context about Unity menu execution versus other operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Unity running), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like run_tests or select_object, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how messages appear in the console, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that sends messages (implying mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending, return values, error conditions, or integration with Unity's console system. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides about message content or type options. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('sends') and target ('message to the Unity console'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_menu_item' or 'run_tests', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like logging to files or using other console methods. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states a general purpose. It doesn't describe whether this tool performs read-only or destructive operations, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, or what the typical output looks like, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loaded detail that could immediately clarify the tool's specific actions, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 tool's complexity with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond a vague purpose, leaving gaps in understanding behavioral traits, return values, and proper usage context, which is inadequate for effective agent invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the general purpose, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without enhancement from the description.

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 'Manages packages in the Unity Package Manager' states a general purpose but is vague about what specific actions are performed. It doesn't specify whether it adds, removes, updates, or lists packages, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'execute_menu_item' or 'run_tests' which are unrelated to package management.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for package management, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameters alone without explicit direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, execution time, error handling, or output format (e.g., test results). The phrase 'Runs' implies execution but gives no further context on safety or side effects.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 complexity of running tests (which involves execution and potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what results to expect, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of test filters or implications of test modes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Runs') and the resource ('Unity's Test Runner tests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_menu_item' or 'package_manager', which could also involve Unity operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when in Unity's workflow), or comparisons to siblings like 'execute_menu_item' for other Unity actions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Sets the selected object' which implies a mutation (changing editor state), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific editor modes, if changes are undoable, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Sets the selected object') with essential details ('in the Unity editor by path or ID'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation in an editor environment), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'objectPath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'path or ID' and providing an example ('Main Camera'), but doesn't elaborate on syntax, format differences, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Sets the selected object') and the resource ('in the Unity editor'), with the method ('by path or ID') specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_menu_item' or 'run_tests' by focusing on object selection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'notify_message' is clearly different, but the distinction could be more explicit for a perfect score).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open Unity project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context for selection.

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