get_prim_intrinsics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it cooks the node, what node types are supported, what an 'intrinsic value' means, or what format the result takes. The summary mode for prim_index is the only behavioral nuance mentioned.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant promotional language. The Args block is brief and scannable, though it sacrifices enough detail that it cannot be considered perfectly calibrated.

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 should explain what the returned intrinsics look like and what node_path refers to. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape or valid paths without external Houdini knowledge.

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 Args section is the only parameter documentation. It mostly restates the schema titles: 'Node path' and 'Primitive index.' It adds one useful semantic — prim_index=None means a summary — but it does not explain what node_path should point to or what intrinsic values are included.

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 operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('intrinsic values for primitives'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_prims or get_usd_prim, and 'intrinsic values' is left as unexplained Houdini jargon.

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 instead of get_prims, get_geometry_info, or other geometry-read alternatives. The only usage-related detail is the parameter note that prim_index=None returns a summary, which is not tool-selection guidance.

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