get_niagara_schema_actions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It describes the underlying call briefly but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The description is neutral but could be more explicit about behavior.

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?

Description is three paragraphs: purpose, background, parameters. Efficiently structured and front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous content.

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 (retrieving graph actions), it explains what entries contain (display_name, category, etc.) and parameter details. Output schema exists but not used here. Missing context about required permissions or asset path format, but overall sufficient.

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%, but the description lists all four parameters with meaningful explanations: system_path, module_name, filter (substring matching), max_results (cap). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly states 'Return the full graph context-menu actions for a scratch pad module', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Niagara operations by focusing on retrieving context menu actions, not adding/modifying nodes.

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?

Mentions it wraps the same call as the editor's right-click menu, implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like add_niagara_graph_node.

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