get_niagara_system_warmup_time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces read-only behavior and, importantly, enumerates the exact fields returned in the absence of an output schema, adding real value beyond the annotations.

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, then the read-only routing, then the return shape. Every sentence is functional, though listing all four setter tool names is slightly verbose and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape itself and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter system_path is well documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('warmup and determinism settings of a Niagara System asset') and enumerates the exact fields returned (warmup_time, warmup_tick_count, warmup_tick_delta, needs_warmup, deterministic). It clearly distinguishes the read operation from the four set_* siblings that mutate the same fields.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Read-only; change them with set_niagara_system_warmup_time, ...'. This names the alternatives and the condition that selects them. It does not, however, distinguish this from other system-reading tools like get_niagara_system_info or get_niagara_system_properties, which is a minor gap.

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