get_stage_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'stage info' actually contains, how an invalid or uncooked node path is handled, or whether the result is hierarchical or summarized; only the source of the data is 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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, and the key resource and source are immediately visible. Its brevity is efficient, though it verges on under-specification given the total absence of schema documentation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not say enough about what is returned or how the sole parameter behaves. The basic intent is clear, but an agent cannot confidently predict the response shape or the path semantics from this text alone.

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% for the single node_path parameter, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It implies the path selects a LOP node or network but never explains the expected format, the meaning of the /stage default, or whether a network path is treated differently from a node path.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get USD stage info') and clarifies the source object class (a LOP node or a LOP network), which helps separate it from generic siblings like get_node_info or get_scene_info. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'from a LOP node, or from a LOP network', so an agent can infer this is the tool for stage-level data in LOP contexts. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions such as the node being cooked, and no named alternative for adjacent information needs.

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