usd_module_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it names the underlying UnrealUSDWrapper calls, explains that zero counts indicate USDCore did not load, and clarifies that supported formats may include third-party plugin extensions like Alembic 'abc'.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, implementation details follow to aid interpretation, and the explicit return shape compensates for the absent output schema. Every sentence contributes useful context for a no-param diagnostic tool.

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?

Given the simple input schema, rich annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool probes, how to interpret zero counts, and enumerates the returned fields.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description appropriately does not invent or omit parameter guidance.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: probing whether the USDCore plugin is loaded and which USD file formats are readable/writable. It distinguishes this diagnostic from siblings like list_usd_file_formats by naming the underlying plugin and the exact format sets it returns.

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?

The diagnostic context is implied by 'Probe whether the USDCore plugin is loaded,' but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as interchange_module_status or list_usd_file_formats. No when-not guidance is provided.

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