niagara_profile_system

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Return' signals a read-style operation and 'asset-level' scopes the behavior, but it does not state whether the asset is modified, what prerequisites exist, or whether the profiling data is cached or live.

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 definition is compact: one purpose sentence, a KB pointer, and one invocation example. Everything present contributes, and the key 'lightweight asset-level profiling' phrase is front-loaded.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema, the basic invocation is adequately covered, and the KB pointer adds reference depth. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral notes means an agent must infer too much when selecting among many Niagara and validation tools.

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%, but the single system_path parameter is fairly self-describing and the example '/Game/MCP_Test/Example' adds concrete Unreal asset path-format semantics beyond the schema. The description could still spell out explicitly that this is the asset path of the Niagara System to profile.

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 action (Return) and a specific resource (lightweight asset-level Niagara profiling data and authoring hints), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby Niagara tools like niagara_describe_system or niagara_validate_authoring_support, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The example shows only invocation syntax, and 'lightweight asset-level' hints at a use case but does not tell an agent how to choose this tool over other Niagara inspection or validation tools.

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