get_niagara_data_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is low, and the description clears it by spelling out the full return shape and the semantics of each returned field. It discloses no auth or rate-limit caveats, but for a read-only list operation that is a minor omission.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by field semantics and an explicit return shape. The dense field-definition sentence carries real information, though it is slightly heavy for a one-parameter tool. No wasted filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully supplies the full return structure, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple single-parameter reader this is nearly complete; only the absence of usage routing to sibling tools keeps it from 5.

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% for the single system_path parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description's field explanations (parameter_name, object_name, path_name, index) concern the return payload rather than the input parameter, so it does not add input-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'List all UNiagaraDataInterface user-parameter bindings on a Niagara system.' This distinguishes it from emitter-level (get_niagara_emitter_data_interfaces) and class-listing (list_niagara_data_interface_classes) siblings by scoping to system-level user-parameter bindings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it tops out at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied. The note that parameter_name is 'the name the other data interface tools take' explains a field's format and hints the tool feeds other data-interface tools, but it never states when to call this versus get_niagara_data_interface_info or get_niagara_emitter_data_interfaces. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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