list_action_graphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses the read-only listing behavior and the default inclusion of disabled graphs, but it does not explain the role of command_id/idempotency_key or mention any side-effect profile beyond the word 'List'.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args section adds parameter meaning with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: target path and the disabled-graph default. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here; the main gap is the absence of alternative-tool routing and the unexplained optional command/idempotency fields.

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 carry parameter semantics. It provides clear meanings for root_path and include_disabled, but command_id and idempotency_key are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List Action Graphs below a USD root'. It also states a non-obvious scope, including disabled graphs by default, which clearly differentiates it from singular get_action_graph and other action-graph manipulation tools.

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 the tool: when you need an inventory of Action Graphs under a USD subtree. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so there is no strong sibling routing guidance beyond what 'list' implies.

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