get_niagara_emitter_handles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the full return shape and that the handle names are consumed by downstream emitter tools. Since there is no output schema, this disclosure is doing real work.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and resource, then a compact behavioural note, then an explicit Returns block. Dense but every clause is useful; only the 'Read-only' restatement overlaps the annotations.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return structure, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema while annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents system_path thoroughly (100% coverage, including the failure mode). The description restates system_path in the Returns block but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List every emitter handle of a Niagara System asset') plus the exact fields returned, and it explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_niagara_emitter_handle_info ('gives one handle in detail'). An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

States the read-only nature and routes the agent: use this to enumerate handles, use get_niagara_emitter_handle_info for a single handle in detail. It also notes the names feed the other emitter tools, which is genuine workflow guidance. No explicit exclusions, but the alternative is named with its distinguishing condition.

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