get_niagara_system_errors

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns issues from compilation and validation, implying a read-only operation. No contradictions. But it lacks details on potential side effects, idempotency, or exact output format. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Well-structured and concise. First sentence states purpose, second describes return, third gives use cases, then a clean list of parameters. No wasted sentences. Front-loaded with most important info.

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 (though not shown), the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and use cases. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but for a diagnostic tool, this is likely sufficient. Nearly complete.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (system_path, emitter_name, severity) with their meaning, types, and defaults. This adds critical meaning not present in the schema, which only has types and defaults.

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 'Get compilation errors, warnings, and validation issues for a Niagara System.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (Niagara System errors), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compile_niagara_system (which compiles) and get_niagara_system_info (which gets general info).

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use to diagnose why a system isn't working, find outdated modules, or check for configuration problems.' However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternatives, though the context is clear among siblings.

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