niagara_describe_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reports what Python can safely inspect, which hints at a read-only safety assessment. However, it does not detail what happens if the system_path is invalid, whether it modifies anything, or what the output structure looks like. The 'safely inspect' phrasing is useful but underdeveloped.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The KB reference and example are useful, but the KB link is somewhat cryptic and the example could be integrated more cleanly. Overall, it is concise without excessive verbosity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered there. However, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and only a bare example, the description leaves gaps about error behavior, path format, and what 'safely inspect' means in practice. It is adequate for a simple inspection tool but not complete.

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 0%, and the description only shows an example with system_path='/Game/MCP_Test/Example'. It does not explain the expected format of system_path (e.g., full asset path, package path, whether it must be a valid asset), nor does it describe any constraints. The example provides some guidance but is insufficient for a single required 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('a Niagara System asset'), and adds a safety-oriented purpose ('report what Python can safely inspect'). It is distinguishable from siblings like niagara_find_systems or niagara_validate_authoring_support, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'what Python can safely inspect', which suggests it is a read-only inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like niagara_find_systems or niagara_validate_authoring_support, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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