describe_niagara_type

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the underlying FProperty introspector, the recursive handling of Unreal property kinds, and specifics for enums, structs, and data interfaces. It could mention side effects or performance, but a read-only schema lookup likely has none.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose first, then details. The list of property kinds is lengthy but relevant. It is concise enough, though could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description adds extra context on recursive property handling and type-specific return details, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 provides a bare 'type' string property with no description, but the description's Args section fully compensates by detailing acceptable values: built-in names, registered types, UEnum/UScriptStruct paths, and UNiagaraDataInterface subclass names. This adds critical meaning.

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 the full schema of any Niagara type, listing supported categories (primitive, enum, struct, data interface). It is specific about what it does, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_niagara_data_interface_schema or get_niagara_system_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 provides a list of supported input types, implying when to use this tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual conditions.

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