ue_niagara_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable detail that the tool operates on the asset directly without requiring a running game instance, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format or any side effects.

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 concise, with no filler. It leads with the core purpose and immediately provides the key usage caveat (asset-level, no PIE). The argument example is clearly separated under 'Args:', making the structure easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter info tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the asset-level operation mode, and a parameter example. It stops short of specifying whether the asset must already exist or how errors are handled, but is overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type (string), while the description supplements it with an example path ('/Game/MyGame/VFX/NS_Explosion'). This gives practical meaning to the expected format, though it doesn't exhaustively detail path validation or allowed patterns.

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 the tool returns emitter and user parameter information for a Niagara System asset. It specifies the resource (Niagara System) and the type of info (emitters and exposed parameters), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling info tools like ue_pcg_graph_info or ue_anim_sequence_info.

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 a clear usage context: it works at asset level and does not require an active PIE session or an instanced scene component. This helps the user understand when it's appropriate to call the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions.

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