get_usd_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behavior for missing attributes, composed vs. authored values, error handling, or the relationship between 'path' and 'prim_path'. This is a significant gap for a USD tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant content, so it is highly concise and front-loaded. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary details; while the sentence is efficient, the structure is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 three required parameters with zero schema descriptions, a USD attribute getter, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The description fails to clarify parameter semantics, path vs. prim_path, return behavior, or when to choose this tool over related getters like 'get_attrib_values'. The tool is effectively unusable from the provided description alone.

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 adds no parameter-level details. Critically, it does not explain the distinction between 'path' and 'prim_path', which is non-obvious and could lead to incorrect invocation. The description only reuses the generic term 'attribute value' without mapping to the three required parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific USD attribute value'), and the qualifier 'specific' indicates a single attribute rather than a bulk listing. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_usd_attribute' (write operation), 'get_attrib_values' (likely geometry attributes), and 'get_usd_prim_stats' (prim-level 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 implies usage: use it when you need to retrieve one USD attribute value. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternative tool names, and no discussion of prerequisites such as a valid prim path or stage. Context is minimal but not misleading.

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