get_niagara_actors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves all Niagara actors in the current level, which is a read operation. While it doesn't detail the return format, the presence of an output schema reduces the need. The description is clear and sufficiently transparent for this type of tool.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the only parameter. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's main action and the optional filter. It could marginally improve by clarifying what 'Niagara actors' encompasses (e.g., all spawned Niagara effects), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds the meaning: 'Optional filter on the Niagara System name or path'. This gives the agent useful context beyond the schema's type info, though it could be more specific about matching behavior (substring/regex).

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's purpose: 'Get all Niagara actors in the current level.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'Niagara actors', and the scope 'current level'. An optional filter parameter is also mentioned, which distinguishes it from generic actor-finding tools among siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool (to get Niagara actors in the current level) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools, some guidance on differentiation would be helpful, though the purpose alone often suffices.

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