get_niagara_user_parameters

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 states the return structure (name, type, value_type) and parameter options, but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only or any prerequisites. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 clear summary followed by parameter details. It is concise yet informative, though it could be slightly shorter by removing the sample values from the filter example.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the three parameters and their usage. However, it lacks information about error conditions or behavior when both system_path and actor_name are provided.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to the parameters beyond the input schema, which only lists types and defaults. It explains system_path as 'Path to the Niagara System asset', actor_name as 'Name of an actor in the level with a NiagaraComponent', and filter as 'Optional name filter (e.g. "Color", "Intensity", "Size")'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 user-exposed parameters from a Niagara System asset or a level actor's component.' It specifies both the action and the resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_niagara_user_parameter and add_niagara_user_parameter.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Provide either system_path (asset) or actor_name (level instance). Use filter to narrow by parameter name substring.' However, it lacks explicit statements about when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_niagara_module_inputs.

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