get_niagara_system_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 accurately describes a read-only operation (get info) with no side effects mentioned. It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits, but for a simple get operation, it is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a brief summary paragraph and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 output schema exists contextually, the description need not detail return values. It fully explains the parameters and the overall purpose. For a parameter-rich tool (3 params), this is 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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds all meaning. It explains system_path, include (with default 'all' and sections), and filter (with examples like 'Spark'). This far exceeds the schema's minimal type/default info.

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 tool gets detailed info about a Niagara System, listing specific returns (system name, emitter list, user parameters, compilation status). It distinguishes from siblings like list_niagara_systems (which lists systems without details) and get_niagara_emitters (emitter-focused).

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 how to use the include and filter parameters to narrow results, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_niagara_systems or get_niagara_emitters, missing some usage context.

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