niagara_find_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that assets are found through the Asset Registry, without mentioning pagination behavior, search semantics, root path effects, or whether this is a read-only operation. The behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 main purpose. However, the example adds little value because it omits all parameters, and the KB reference is a link rather than integrated guidance. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is far from complete. The output schema exists, but the agent still lacks key context about search/filter semantics, default behavior, and relationship to sibling Niagara and asset-finding tools. The KB link may help, but the description itself does not provide enough.

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 does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters (page, limit, search, root_path). The example call uses no arguments, which only implies the parameters are optional, but provides no meaning for search, root_path, pagination, or limits.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('Niagara System and Emitter assets') via the Asset Registry. It is understandable and specific to Niagara assets, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like ue_find_assets_by_class or project_find_assets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_find_assets_by_class, project_find_assets, or niagara_describe_system. The KB link hints at related context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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