lop_stage_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation ('读取') and mentions 'NO_UNDO' and 'apply_response_cap', adding some context. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, permission requirements, or error behavior, though the read-oriented wording is a strong safety signal.

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 compact and front-loads the core function in the first line. The second paragraph adds meaningful detail about the response. Some mixed-language jargon ('add-usd-solaris-tools', 'apply_response_cap') may reduce clarity but does not waste space.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: parameter semantics, exact return structure, and error behavior are missing. It covers the main metadata fields but is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it without additional assumptions.

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 explain ctx, max_prims, or node_path beyond implying node_path is the LOP node from LopNode.stage(). The meaning of max_prims (e.g., limit on counted prims) is unstated, and ctx is entirely opaque.

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 composed stage metadata (upAxis, metersPerUnit, framesPerSecond, defaultPrim, and prim count) from LopNode.stage(). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lop_layer_info or get_usd_prim_stats, which focus on different layers or prim-level details.

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 implies usage for retrieving stage-level USD metadata, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is clear for the core scenario but does not guide the agent toward comparing it with other LOP-related tools like lop_layer_info or list_usd_prims.

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