list_niagara_data_interface_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (name, inputs/outputs, CPU/GPU support, description) and cites the authoritative source (GetFunctionSignatures). It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or discuss permissions, though for an enumeration tool this is acceptable.

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 the purpose front-loaded, followed by context, return information, and parameter details. It is appropriately detailed without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 explains the key return fields and provides a source reference. It covers the essential aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it lacks information on error handling or edge cases. Still, it is fairly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: di_class is described as short or full path with an example, filter as an optional substring with examples, and include_pins as a boolean defaulting to true. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Enumerate member functions' and clearly identifies the resource ('Niagara data interface class'). It explains what these functions are (right-click 'Functions' submenu on a DI pin) and distinguishes them from UNiagaraScript assets, explicitly noting they don't show up in search_niagara_functions.

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 context for when to use the tool (to get data interface functions for use with add_niagara_graph_node) and explicitly states that these functions are not covered by search_niagara_functions. It gives an example of passing the result to another tool. However, it does not exhaustively list all alternatives or explicitly 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.