search_niagara_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It describes the tool as a search operation, implying non-destructive behavior. It explains key parameters like include_engine (restricting scan) and usage filter. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond what is in the schema.

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: a short introductory sentence followed by an Args list. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's straightforward nature (search), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, and usage context. All 4 parameters are explained, and no required parameters exist. The tool's role among many Niagara siblings is clear.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so thoroughly: filter (name/path substring), usage (explicit enum with default), include_engine (effect of false), and max_results (cap). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 searches Niagara script assets by usage and name filter, specifying asset types (module/dynamic_input/function) and its purpose as a shortcut for subsequent operations like add_niagara_module or set_niagara_dynamic_input. It effectively differentiates from other search tools by its specific Niagara focus.

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 when to use the tool (to find Niagara script assets for subsequent operations) and implies its dedicated nature. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to related tools like search_material_functions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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