get_usd_variant_set_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description additionally discloses the exact return shape (prim_path, variants, current_selection, variant_count), which is material context given no output schema exists.

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 purpose, and the Returns line earns its place by documenting output shape. No filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool, the definition pairs complete schema docs, a full annotation safety profile, and an inline output description (no output schema). Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so prim_path, stage_name, and variant_set_name are fully documented in the schema. The description maps conceptually to these fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond them; 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read the variant names and current selection for a single variant set on a prim.' The 'single variant set' scope implicitly distinguishes it from list_usd_variant_sets, 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 by 'single variant set' (versus the list-all sibling), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. An agent can infer intent but isn't routed with certainty.

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