list_niagara_emitter_templates

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 clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects. The description is straightforward and matches the expected behavior of a list tool.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter details. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple nature of the tool (listing templates) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It specifies the purpose and parameter details, leaving return value documentation to the output schema.

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 lists the allowed values for the category parameter ('all', 'sprite', 'mesh', 'ribbon', 'light', 'audio'), which is not present in the input schema. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only defines the type as string with a default.

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's purpose: listing emitter templates for use with add_niagara_emitter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_niagara_systems or list_niagara_modules by specifying 'emitter templates' and linking to a specific usage, making it unambiguous.

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 implies usage with add_niagara_emitter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to filter by category). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

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