get_niagara_node_info

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 implies a read-only operation ('inspect') and mentions 'stable per session' for node_index, but does not explicitly state safety (non-destructive), permissions, or side effects.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a line about parameter selection, and a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter selection, and alternative resolution methods. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., valid Niagara system) but is largely complete for agent 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful details: it explains mutual exclusivity for node_index/node_class/node_id, gives examples ('MapGet') and format (FGuid), and clarifies the role of system_path/module_name and script_path. Some parameters (system_path, module_name, script_path) are described only briefly.

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 'Deep inspect a single Niagara node: full pin layout, connections, type-specific detail.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_niagara_graph_nodes' which lists all nodes, as this tool provides detailed inspection of one node.

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 explains that exactly one of node_index/node_class/node_id must be provided, and outlines alternative resolution methods (system_path+module_name or script_path). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other Niagara tools or state when not to use it.

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