get_niagara_system_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses the reflection mechanism (GetPropertyValue_InContainer + GetFixedBounds) and the important 'no recompile' trait, which tells the agent this won't mutate the asset or trigger a build.

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 purpose and mechanism are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the safety note and a structured return listing. The Returns block is long but earns its place since 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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit return field list compensates and gives the agent the shape of the response. Combined with the one fully-documented parameter and rich annotations, the definition is well-covered.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents system_path. The description adds no format/meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (render/system flags + fixed bounds of a UNiagaraSystem asset), and enumerates the exact fields so it is distinguishable from get_niagara_system_info and get_niagara_system_warmup_time. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the field-level specificity makes the target clear.

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 says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like get_niagara_system_info or set_niagara_system_properties. 'Read-only; no recompile' is a safety note, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer the usage context.

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