open_usd_stage

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the stage-cache return path, forced disk reload of local layers, and registration into GStageNameCache with a derived name. It leaves some ambiguity about why destructiveHint is true (registry/cache mutation is not explicitly framed as a destructive side effect), but the operational behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core action comes first, then caching/reload semantics, then registry naming, then the return shape. It is dense but each sentence carries operational information; slightly verbose but not padded.

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 present, the description supplies the full return shape (stage_name, stage_id, identifier, real_path, from_cache, file_path, errors) and explains that stage_id is a stable handle for follow-up commands. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or chain it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and enum-like values for initial_load_set. The description's notes on caching and derived naming largely restate 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 and resource ('Open an existing USD stage from a file path') and immediately identifies the implementation wrapper and its caching/reload semantics. An agent can distinguish it from create_usd_stage or close_usd_stage from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear context for the key decision points: when use_stage_cache is true the existing stage is returned, and force_reload is recommended 'when the file was modified by another tool since the last open.' However, it never names or routes to alternatives such as create_usd_stage or close_usd_stage as siblings.

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