get_usd_attribute_value

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 value by enumerating the return shape (present/has_value/has_authored_value/type/type_name/value), which discloses important edge-case semantics (an attribute can exist but lack an authored value) that no other field provides.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return shape. It is compact with no obvious filler, though the dense inline return-object listing is slightly run-on rather than cleanly formatted.

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, the description usefully supplies the return contract, and annotations plus a fully documented schema cover the rest. What is missing is routing context among the many USD siblings, which an agent needs to select this tool correctly.

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 100%, so stage_name, prim_path, attr_name and time are all documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'at a time code' gestures at the time parameter but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema's 'default: unset = static default'; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (read) plus resource (USD attribute value) and a scope qualifier (at a time code), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_usd_attribute_time_samples or list_usd_prim_attributes, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this versus get_usd_attribute_time_samples, list_usd_prim_attributes, or get_usd_prim_info, so selection is left entirely to inference from the name.

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