get_last_modified_prims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little: it does not say what happens if no cook has occurred, whether it requires a live Houdini/LOP session, what form the results take (prim paths vs objects), or whether the read is empty-safe. Only the temporal scoping ('last cook') is conveyed.

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 short sentence with the key qualifier ('last LOP node cook') front-loaded and no wasted wording. Its terseness is close to under-specification, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool the description is still thin: there is no output schema to explain return values, no annotations to convey safety or side effects, and the description does not state the result shape or failure modes. An agent could call it but could not predict the response.

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, and it does not: node_path is the only parameter and its meaning (path to the LOP node whose cook is inspected) is only obliquely implied by 'last LOP node cook'. No format, path syntax, or error behavior for a bad path is given.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('prims modified by the last LOP node cook'), which clearly separates it from plain prim readers like get_prims or find_usd_prims. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell what question it answers, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 phrase 'last LOP node cook' implies this is only meaningful right after a cook, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., get_prims) stated. The agent must infer that this is for inspecting recent cook output rather than general prim lookup.

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