compile_niagara_system

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

Explains that compilation may block (via wait_for_completion parameter) and reports errors. Without annotations, this covers key behavior. However, lacks details on side effects (e.g., does compilation modify the asset? Are errors stored?)

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus two parameter lines. No redundant or missing information. Every sentence is necessary.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the action. Still, it could mention that compilation validates and may report errors, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., system must exist) or consequences (e.g., potential asset modification).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear semantics for both parameters: system_path is the asset path, wait_for_completion blocks until finish. Adds meaning beyond type info.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Compile' and resource 'Niagara System' with the outcome 'report any errors'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_niagara_system_errors (which reads errors without compiling) and compile_statetree (different asset type).

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?

Implies usage is for compiling a Niagara system, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_niagara_system_errors or validate_niagara_graph. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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