inspect_gameobject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and the detailed parameter note gives some sense of response weight, but the description does not state the return shape, failure behavior, or explicitly confirm the absence of 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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and key usage condition with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves the return value unspecified and does not reference nearby inspection alternatives. It would be more complete with a brief note about what is returned and a pointer to inspect_component for component-level inspection.

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 both path and detailed are already documented. The description adds little beyond restating the path-based scope and the lightweight/detailed distinction already present in the schema.

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 clear verb (Inspect) and resource (specific GameObject by path), so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It distinguishes itself from list_gameobjects and query_gameobjects by requiring a path for one object, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'by path' establishes clear context: use this tool when you have a specific GameObject path and want to inspect that object. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or route to alternatives such as list_gameobjects or inspect_component, so it stops short of a 5.

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