list_niagara_ops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears transparency. It details the return fields (name, friendly_name, category, etc.) and explains each parameter's effect, providing clear behavioral insight beyond a simple 'list'.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, then usage, return fields, and parameter details. Every sentence is useful, though slightly lengthy; no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. It covers return fields, parameter semantics, and usage context. No mention of error handling or empty results, but acceptable for a listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates excellently with detailed explanations for all 5 parameters: filter (case-insensitive substring matching), category (exact match with examples), exact_name, include_pins, and max_results. Examples add semantic clarity.

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 it enumerates valid UNiagaraNodeOp operations from the FNiagaraOpInfo registry, explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_niagara_node_types by noting its use case for add_niagara_graph_node with node_type='Op'.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: before calling add_niagara_graph_node with node_type='Op', to get valid op names. It does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear among many Niagara sibling tools.

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