get_niagara_module_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that include_schema includes 'massive structural type schemas,' warning about response size. It does not mention side effects (none anticipated) or access requirements, but covers the main behavioral trait well.

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 structured with a concise summary sentence followed by a parameter list. It is slightly lengthy due to parameter descriptions but remains front-loaded and easy to scan. No wasted sentences.

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 an output schema (not shown), so return values are documented elsewhere. The description effectively warns about potentially large responses via include_schema. It covers the core functionality and parameter semantics, making it complete enough for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes all 6 parameters in the docstring, adding meaning beyond the raw schema (e.g., 'Optional substring filter on input parameter names'). However, it could provide more detail on expected values (e.g., valid script_usage options).

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 'Get all input parameters for a specific module,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. This tool is distinct from sibling tools like set_niagara_module_input or get_niagara_module_input_binding.

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 lists required parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_niagara_module_input for a single input, or set_niagara_module_input to modify). Usage is implied but not clear.

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