inspect_usd_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'inspect' without specifying return value, side effects, or error behavior for invalid indices. This leaves significant uncertainty about what the tool actually does beyond the tagline.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no fluff or repetition, though its brevity leads to omission of useful details.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves major gaps: what does inspection return, what is the layer stack, and what does 'path' refer to? The tool is part of a large family of USD tools, and this description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description only partially explains the 'layer_index' parameter via 'by index'. The 'path' parameter is left implicit and not described as a file path or stage identifier. The description does not adequately compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Inspect') and the target resource ('specific USD layer') with a specific qualifier ('by index in the stack'). This distinguishes it from other layer inspection tools like lop_layer_info by focusing on index-based access. However, 'the stack' is not explicitly defined, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lop_layer_info or get_usd_composition. The description lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about the layer stack.

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