get_usd_layer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the full return shape, including an optional errors array, which is the main behavioral unknown for a metadata read with no output schema.

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-loaded single sentence stating the operation and the fields covered, followed by a compact return-shape block. No filler, though the inline return sketch adds length that a lighter reference would handle.

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 compensates by spelling out the returned fields; params are fully covered by the schema. Only the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many sibling USD layer/stage tools keeps it short of complete.

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%: stage_name and the 0-based layer_index (including the out-of-range error behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter nuance, so the 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+resource+scope: 'Read metadata for a single layer in the stage's stack', and enumerates the fields returned. The 'single layer' framing implicitly separates it from list_usd_stage_layers, but 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_usd_stage_layers, get_usd_stage_info, or list_usd_stage_layers for enumerating the stack. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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