get_niagara_emitters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions only the data returned and the filter option. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how pagination works, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its immediate function.

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 concise: three sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose, lists returned fields, and then explains parameters. No extraneous information or repetition. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately lists returned fields and parameters. However, it lacks mention of potential limitations (e.g., maximum number of emitters returned) or error conditions. For a simple list tool, this is nearly complete; minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: 'system_path' is explained as 'Path to the Niagara System asset', and 'filter' is described with examples like 'Spark', 'Flame', 'Trail'. Since the schema has zero description coverage, this supplement is valuable and clarifies how to use the parameters effectively.

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 emitters in a Niagara System.' It specifies what data is returned (name, unique_name, index, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_niagara_system_info' and 'get_niagara_emitter_attributes' by focusing on emitter listing and metadata.

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 some usage guidance ('Use filter to get specific emitters by name substring'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_niagara_system_info' or 'list_niagara_systems'. No exclusion criteria or contextual hints are given, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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