get_usd_layers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only enumeration, but it never states whether sublayers or referenced layers are included, what the returned identifiers look like, whether the operation is safe to repeat, or what permissions or filesystem access are needed. For a tool with no annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a substantial gap.

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 is one short sentence with no filler, and it is front-loaded with the operation. Its brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than from trimming redundancy, so it is concise but under-specified.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and has no output schema, so the description is the only source of meaning. It omits how node_path is interpreted and what the list will contain, which is the minimum an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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%: the single required parameter is documented only as a bare string, 'Node Path', with an empty description. The description never mentions the parameter, so it does not resolve the critical ambiguity of whether node_path is a filesystem path to a .usda layer file or a prim path inside an already-loaded stage.

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 and resource: it lists layers, and scopes them to a USD stage. That is clear enough to act on. It does not distinguish itself from neighbors such as inspect_usd_layer or get_usd_composition, so an agent must infer from the names alone what the difference is.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use inspect_usd_layer, get_usd_composition, or get_usd_prim instead. The only usage signal is the implicit one conveyed by 'list all'. There are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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