list_niagara_systems

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden, but it fails to mention possible side effects or performance implications. It is adequate for a simple list operation.

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: one sentence for the purpose followed by bullet points for parameters. Every part is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does and the parameters. However, it could mention whether the listing is recursive or scoped to a directory, though the 'path' parameter implies directory scoping.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Content Browser directory to search in'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Niagara System assets'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_assets' and 'find_assets' by focusing on Niagara System assets alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing and searching assets, explicit context or comparisons would help the agent choose correctly.

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