get_usd_generated_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the empty assets array with count:0 is explicitly NOT an error, and a single prim can produce multiple assets (e.g. skinned mesh -> USkeletalMesh + USkeleton + UPhysicsAsset), which shapes how the agent interprets results.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers in the edge-case behavior and the return shape. Well ordered and mostly economical, though the explicit 'Returns:' line partially restates what could be inferred and adds slight length.

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 carries the return-type explanation itself, listing the full response shape and the empty-result edge case. That covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it, with only minor gaps around asset lifecycle or transient validity.

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 both actor_path and prim_path are already documented in the schema. The description implies prim_path is the lookup key via 'for a given prim path' but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (transient assets generated by the stage actor for a prim path), and cites the underlying API AUsdStageActor::GetGeneratedAssets. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_usd_generated_component or get_usd_prim_info by naming the concrete asset types produced.

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?

Conveys clear context of use: retrieve assets generated by the stage actor for a given prim path, and explicitly notes that a prim may yield multiple assets. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or a when-not condition, so routing relative to siblings stays implicit.

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