get_usd_composition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves composition arcs but does not mention side effects, error handling, or what happens when a prim does not exist. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but no explicit safety guarantees or behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected return structure, the relationship between the two arguments, or edge cases, so the agent may not be able to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify the meaning of the 'path' parameter or how 'path' and 'prim_path' relate. While 'prim' is mentioned, the description fails to explain the role of either parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid arguments.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving composition arcs (references, payloads, inherits, specializes) for a prim. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_usd_prim_stats or get_usd_attribute.

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 the tool is used when composition arcs are needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_usd_prim_stats or inspect_usd_layer. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so usage context is only implied.

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