get_niagara_data_interface_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the introspection method ('Walks the CDO via the modular FProperty introspector') and details the returned fields. It clearly indicates a read operation without side effects, though it omits error handling info for invalid class names.

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 summary, details on coverage, return field list, and argument section. It is slightly verbose with the enumeration of DI types but effectively front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with minimal waste.

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 the tool's complexity (1 param, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description provides a thorough overview of return fields and usage. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., nonexistent class) and does not mention the output schema structure explicitly.

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 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions on parameter properties). The description fully compensates by explaining the class_ parameter, including that the 'UNiagaraDataInterface' prefix is optional, and providing examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Return the full editable-property schema of a UNiagaraDataInterface subclass', which is a specific verb and resource. It lists many example DI types and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_niagara_data_interfaces by focusing on schema retrieval for a single DI.

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 says 'Use to discover what fields a DI supports before configuring or instantiating one', which implies appropriate context. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention sibling tools like list_niagara_data_interfaces for listing available DIs.

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