inspect_niagara_system

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior, dependency on Niagara runtime, and lazy-loading considerations. However, it does not describe return format or error handling.

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?

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then implementation details. No wasted words.

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 description covers key aspects: what is read, dependencies, and initialization requirements. However, it lacks details on the exact return structure or potential errors, which would improve completeness given no output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (just provides an example path). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads structural properties of a UNiagaraSystem asset and lists specific components (emitter list, user-exposed parameters, system-level settings). It distinguishes from generic inspect tools like inspect_asset.

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 context such as requiring the Niagara runtime module and EnsureFullyLoaded(), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling inspect tools or state when to use this over alternatives.

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