get_niagara_event_handlers

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 states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or return behavior. The output schema may cover return details, but the description lacks additional behavioral context.

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: a single action line followed by two parameter descriptions. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text. The information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It correctly identifies the tool's scope (event handlers on a specific emitter) and provides parameter info. Minor missing context: what constitutes an 'event handler' or that the system must exist, but overall complete for usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds descriptions for both parameters: 'system_path: Path to the Niagara System asset' and 'emitter_name: Name of the target emitter.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, no format constraints or examples are given.

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 action: 'Get all event handlers configured on an emitter.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_niagara_event_handler' by being a read operation, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. While the sibling 'add_niagara_event_handler' implies this is for reading, explicit guidance is missing.

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