get_niagara_scalability_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the data source (UNiagaraEffectType) and clarifying the level at which each metric applies (system vs emitter) plus the has_scalability_settings flag that signals absence of settings.

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 purpose followed by the field inventory and return shape. Slightly redundant in listing the same fields twice (prose then JSON keys), but the return block is justified because no output schema exists.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the full return structure and field semantics, so an agent knows exactly what it will receive. Nothing needed to call 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?

There is only one parameter (system_path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about path format or validation, leaving the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the scalability configuration of a Niagara system') and narrows the scope to scalability fields read from the system's UNiagaraEffectType. It also distinguishes system-level (MaxInstances) from emitter-level (ScaleSpawnCount) concerns, which separates it from generic getters like get_niagara_system_properties.

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 description never states when to call this instead of alternatives such as get_niagara_effect_type or get_niagara_system_properties, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name; there is no when/when-not guidance.

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