list_niagara_input_source_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns exact dropdown options from the editor, details output structure (input_type, dynamic_inputs, link_parameters), and explains the underlying discovery mechanism (FNiagaraEditorUtilities::GetFilteredScriptAssets, etc.). No contradictions or gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output structure, then provides implementation details in a structured list. It is concise for the complexity but includes low-level internal function names that may not be necessary. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 schema has no descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It explains the output fields in text, bridging the gap. However, it lacks guidance on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid input_name). Still sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage (no parameter descriptions in input-schema), the description does not explain individual parameter semantics. It mentions 'target input' and 'input_name' but does not define required fields like system_path, emitter_name, module_name, or script_usage. The context of the UI dropdown partially compensates, but the agent would need additional knowledge to map parameters correctly.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Reproduce the stack-UI source dropdown for a specific input.' It provides specific verb ('reproduce'), resource ('stack-UI source dropdown'), and context ('for a specific input'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_niagara_dynamic_input or list_niagara_modules.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to see the options available for a Niagara module input's source dropdown. It also hints at a follow-up action by noting that dynamic_inputs have script_path ready to pass to set_niagara_dynamic_input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond that implied chain.

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