get_usd_composition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool has NO_UNDO (suggesting it is not an undoable operation), uses Usd.PrimCompositionQuery when available, and applies a server-side response cap (apply_response_cap). These details add meaningful context beyond the schema and name, helping the agent understand limitations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids verbosity and includes key behavioral notes (NO_UNDO, response cap) in a compact form. However, the Chinese phrasing may be less universally clear, and the mixing of technical terms and shorthand slightly reduces structural clarity. Still, it earns high marks for brevity.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the underlying API and response handling but does not cover parameter meanings, return format, or usage scenarios. Given the complexity of USD composition arcs, a more complete description is necessary for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (ctx, node_path, prim_path, max_arcs). There is no hint about what these parameters mean or how they relate to composition arc retrieval, leaving the agent without essential guidance for correct invocation.

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 'composition arc 摘要' (composition arc summary), which clearly indicates this tool retrieves a summary of composition arcs for a USD prim. The verb is implied by the tool name 'get' and the resource is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling get_usd_* tools by focusing specifically on composition arcs rather than attributes or prim stats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does mention a fallback behavior ('if available; otherwise returns unsupported') but does not explain typical use cases, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over related USD inspection tools.

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