trace_niagara_connection

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

The description details the BFS algorithm, direction options, max depth, and optional pin filter. However, it lacks information on performance implications, what happens if the starting node doesn't exist, and whether the operation is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 first sentence defining the core operation, followed by a bullet-style list of parameters. It is front-loaded with essential information. Slightly verbose in the parameter examples, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, graph traversal) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: direction, depth, pin filtering, and node identification. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., open Niagara system) but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of key parameters (direction, max_depth, pin_name) and the dual identifier system (system_path+module_name OR script_path). The pin_name filter is clearly described. Some parameters like node_index and node_class are listed but not elaborated, keeping it concise.

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?

Clearly states it performs a breadth-first trace of connections from a starting node, explaining upstream/downstream directions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool trace_material_connection, which serves a similar purpose for material graphs.

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?

Describes the purpose (upstream/downstream analysis) and parameters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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