list_niagara_script_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that outputs come from UNiagaraNodeOutput and inputs from filtered variable metadata, which is sufficient for a read-only list tool. It does not cover permissions or error cases, but the provided details are solid.

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 four sentences, each purposeful and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, provides technical detail, and ends with concrete use cases. 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 tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description should explain how to use the parameters and clarify what the output contains. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage and three parameters, the description contains no information about module_name, script_path, or system_path. Users have no guidance on how to specify which script to query, which is a critical omission.

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 'List input + output parameters of a Niagara script', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_niagara_available_parameters by focusing on a script's own parameters, and provides technical details about data sources.

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 says 'Useful for discovering what an Add Parameter dropdown would show or for diff-auditing a graph before/after mutation', giving clear usage context. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context is strong enough for most cases.

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