inspect_unity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the concrete behavior that unchanged revisions produce no repeated payload, which clarifies what idempotency means here. It also lets the agent infer that since_revision is tied to change detection. No statement contradicts the read-only/idempotent annotations.

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 short and the behavioral note does earn its place, but 'semantically' is cryptic and the text is under-specified for a tool with six parameters. It is concise in word count, yet not 'appropriately sized' for the complexity the schema reveals.

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?

With low schema coverage, no output schema, and six parameters, the description leaves important context missing: what a successful inspection returns, which scopes are involved, what targets selects, and how unity_instance affects execution. The single revision-related sentence is useful but far from complete.

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%, so the description bears the burden, but it only loosely clarifies since_revision via 'unchanged revisions'. The other five parameters—scope, detail, targets, max_chars, unity_instance—are left entirely to name/enum inference, and targets in particular is ambiguous.

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 names a verb and resource ('Inspect Unity') but 'semantically' is undefined, and nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like get_viewport or search_capabilities. The second clause describes revision behavior rather than clarifying what inspection covers. It is not a complete tautology, but the core phrasing largely restates the tool name.

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 given for when to use inspect_unity instead of sibling tools such as get_viewport, call_operation, or search_capabilities. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context triggers. An agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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