list_niagara_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as listing modules, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or has no side effects. It also lacks information about authentication, rate limits, or any potential impacts, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 concise, using two sentences plus a parameter list. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff. However, the parameter list could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for even faster scanning.

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?

For a simple tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention the output format (even though an output schema exists, the agent would benefit from a high-level summary), nor does it address potential pagination or default ordering. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself has no parameter descriptions. The description adds significant value by detailing the 'category' options (listing all valid values), explaining 'search' as an optional substring search, and clarifying 'max_results' as a limit on results. This exceeds the baseline and 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 the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'available Niagara module scripts', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It also notes the tool is intended 'for use with add_niagara_module', providing context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_niagara_modules' or 'list_niagara_ops', so clarity is good but not excellent.

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 the tool should be used to obtain modules for 'add_niagara_module', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_niagara_modules' (which may list modules for a specific system) or 'list_niagara_ops'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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