get_usd_attribute_time_samples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it confirms the stage is not modified and, importantly, specifies that a missing attribute returns present=false with an empty list rather than erroring.

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 scoping and missing-attribute behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing 'Returns:' block partially restates fields (time_samples, count, present) already named in the prior sentence, a minor redundancy, but overall it is tight.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so (prim_path, attr_name, time_samples, count), plus the empty/missing-attribute case. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is essentially complete for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (attr_name, prim_path, stage_name with examples and provenance). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the time codes at which a USD attribute ... has authored time samples,' scoped to 'a prim of an open stage.' This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_usd_attribute_value (values) and list_usd_prim_attributes (attribute names), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('on an open stage', 'without changing the stage') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement relative to get_usd_attribute_value or list_usd_prim_attributes. The note that a missing attribute is not an error gives partial operational guidance.

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