get_usd_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('读取') and mentions NO_UNDO and the server-side response cap. It does not detail error behavior or permission requirements, but for a read tool, the key safety aspect is covered. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids fluff, though terms like 'add-usd-solaris-tools' and 'apply_response_cap' are cryptic. Overall, it is efficiently sized.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a brief return format ('attribute value + type name') but fails to explain the parameters or usage context beyond the composed stage/time. This is inadequate for a tool with such low structured metadata.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It mentions 'time' and 'attribute' but does not describe 'ctx', 'node_path', or 'prim_path'. The phrase 'from composed stage' hints at prim_path but insufficiently, leaving several parameters unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool reads a single attribute value and its type name from a composed stage at a given time. It is specific about the verb ('读取') and resource ('attribute'), and the phrase '单个' implies single-attribute scope, distinguishing it from plural-attribute tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_attrib_values.

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 description provides context on when to use the tool: reading an attribute from the composed stage at a specific time. It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools, but the 'single attribute' scope and 'composed stage' context give implied usage guidance.

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