query_gameobjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Search' signals a non-mutating lookup, which is the most important behavioral trait, but it does not describe output shape, match semantics, result limits, or any special behavior. This is minimally transparent for a read-only query tool but lacks detail.

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 with no filler or repetition. It states the action and the two key search criteria, and every word earns its place.

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 simple, fully schema-documented tool with no nested objects and no required parameters, the one-line description plus schema covers the basic call shape. However, missing usage differentiation from sibling tools and unspecified search behavior leave noticeable gaps, making it adequate but not 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that searching is by name or component, which maps to namePattern and componentType, but it does not explain filter combination behavior or how maxResults and includeInactive affect results beyond the schema defaults.

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 ('Search') and identifies the resource ('GameObjects') plus the search criteria ('by name or component'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_gameobjects or inspect_gameobject, so it stops short of a 5.

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 query_gameobjects versus list_gameobjects or inspect_gameobject. There are no when-not-to-use conditions, alternatives, or context hints beyond the word 'Search'. The usage situation is only implied, not stated.

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