resolve_niagara_built_in_dynamic_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the live scan and filtering but does not mention side effects, permissions, performance, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with a clear purpose statement, context paragraph, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers parameters and purpose. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether the scan is cached or can fail, which would enhance completeness.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name_filter (case-insensitive substring), exact_name (exact match), and max_results (cap, default 20). It adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool discovers built-in dynamic-input script asset paths via AssetRegistry, replacing guessed paths. It specifies the resource (UNiagaraScript assets with Usage=DynamicInput) and the action (live scan). This distinguishes it from sibling Niagara tools like 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 explains that the tool replaces guessed paths that vary across UE versions, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative sibling tools for asset discovery, leaving room for improvement.

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