validate_niagara_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the three output arrays and their definitions, which adds value. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies the graph, requires specific permissions, or has performance implications. For a read-only analysis tool, this is acceptable but not excellent.

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, well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like formatting for the three output categories, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the input parameters are completely undocumented in the description. Given that there are three parameters with no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide adequate context for using the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the three parameters (module_name, script_path, system_path). While these appear to be different identifiers for the graph, the description offers no guidance on their meaning or how to choose among them, leaving the agent without essential usage information.

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 the tool classifies three specific node types (orphaned, dead-end, missing-inputs) in a Niagara graph. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'trace_niagara_connection' or 'get_niagara_graph_nodes' by focusing on validation of connection issues.

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 implies usage for finding problematic nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trace_niagara_connection for specific connections). No direct comparison to sibling tools or indications of prerequisites is provided.

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