get_prim_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses exact rotation convention (XYZ degrees, same as transform_object), the transform block structure, and that actual_size accounts for scale and default primitive dimensions. It omits error behavior and whether children are recursive, but the primary observable behavior is clear.

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 front-loads the core action, then provides a compact, information-dense summary of return semantics and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an output schema exists and this is a read-style getter, the description covers the essential return values, rotation/scale semantics, and the required parameter. Minor gaps like error handling and whether children are recursive are acceptable and partly delegated to the output schema.

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%, so the Args section must compensate. It identifies prim_path as a USD prim path, adding domain meaning beyond the schema's plain string type and title, and covers the key required parameter. command_id and idempotency_key are left generic, but they are optional infrastructure 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific prim') and enumerates the returned data: type, children, transform block, and actual_size for geometric prims. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_prims by focusing on a single specific prim.

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 when to use it (when you need details about one prim) but never names alternatives like list_prims, get_scene_info, or get_typed_attribute, nor gives exclusion conditions. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving selection partly to inference.

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