get_typed_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a non-mutating read operation and adds useful context by mentioning declared type, authored-value state, and JSON-safe serialization. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but for a read tool the key 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?

A single sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and 'in JSON-safe form' adds meaningful serialization context without bloating the description.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so that gap is mitigated. However, the description lacks parameter semantics for the optional infrastructure parameters, provides no usage exclusions, and has no annotations to fall back on. It is adequate for a straightforward getter but not fully complete for an agent.

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 description must compensate, but it does not define any of the four parameters. The required parameter names prim_path and attribute are self-explanatory, yet optional parameters command_id and idempotency_key remain unexplained, and the description adds no syntax or value-format details beyond the schema titles.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resource ('USD attribute value') plus the returned aspects: declared type, authored-value state, and JSON-safe form. This clearly separates it from the sibling write tool set_typed_attribute and from general prim getters.

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 usage by saying 'Read', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prim_info or set_typed_attribute. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance are provided, so an agent must infer the intended context.

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