get_last_modified_prims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior disclosure burden. It only states the operation and returns no details about what 'modified' means, whether prim paths are returned, how node_path is validated, or what occurs if no cook has happened. This is a minimal mention of behavior, not a transparent account.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: the function's purpose comes first, followed by the single parameter's meaning. There is no redundancy or extra prose, which is efficient for a one-parameter tool. It earns a high score for being appropriately sized and scannable.

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?

This is a simple tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain the return type, the exact format of node_path, or edge cases such as unber-cooked nodes. An agent could invoke it correctly with basic path knowledge, but the missing details leave room for error.

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 for parameter documentation. The only extra context is that node_path is a 'LOP node path,' which adds a vague type qualifier but no format, examples, or constraints. This is insufficient for a tool that depends entirely on this single path parameter.

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 states a specific action and target: 'Get prims modified by the last LOP node cook.' This is more specific than siblings like get_prims or get_usd_prim, the 'last LOP node cook' scope uniquely defines the operation. It does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate, but the clarity of the resource and event is strong.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many getter sibling tools (e.g., get_prims, get_usd_prim, get_prim_intrinsics). The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer the intended context solely from the phrase 'last LOP node cook.'

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