lop_prim_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it searches for matching prims, but does not disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, what pattern syntax is expected (e.g., glob, regex), whether it searches recursively, or what the return format is. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a read/search operation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Search'. It is direct and free of fluff, making it easy to parse. However, its extreme brevity leaves out crucial details, but the structure itself is well-formed for the limited information it conveys.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The agent would not know the expected pattern syntax, the meaning of 'path', or how 'type_name' affects the search. For a search tool, this is a critical omission, making the description incomplete for correct usage.

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 3 parameters (path, pattern, type_name) with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description does not explain any of these parameters. It does not clarify what 'path' refers to, what constitutes a 'pattern', or how 'type_name' filters results. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, failing entirely to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'USD prims' and the qualifier 'matching a pattern', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_usd_prims (which lists all prims) and get_usd_prim_stats (which retrieves stats). It clearly communicates the tool's core function.

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 a usage context: when you need to find prims by matching a pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_usd_prims or find_nodes, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The implied usage is present but not elaborated.

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