lop_layer_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get info') but does not explain what 'layer stack info' includes, what node types are valid, how errors are handled, or what the return structure looks like. The absence of any safety or side-effect disclosure beyond 'Get' is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. However, it fails to define 'layer stack info,' clarify the path parameter, or differentiate from closely related tools. For an agent to invoke this correctly, it would need to guess at return values and parameter semantics, making the description incomplete.

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 a single 'path' parameter with 0% documentation coverage. The description mentions 'from a LOP node,' which hints that 'path' likely refers to a LOP node path, but it does not specify path format, whether it is a scene path vs. file path, or any constraints. This is only minimal compensation for the missing schema 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 tool 'Get USD layer stack info from a LOP node,' combining a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('USD layer stack info') and target ('LOP node'). It distinguishes from siblings like lop_stage_info or get_usd_composition in topic, but does not explicitly reference alternatives or edge cases.

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 such as inspect_usd_layer or get_usd_composition. It only restates the purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and one-line description.

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