get_prims

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Read' implying a non-destructive operation, and 'pagination' indicates paged results, but it does not state what is returned, whether it is read-only, error handling, or any side effects. It also does not clarify if the operation is limited to certain node types. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main action and each line is useful, avoiding fluff. The structure is clear and easy to scan, though the Args list repeats parameter names already in the schema, which is acceptable for readability.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'primitive' refers to (e.g., Houdini geometry primitives vs USD), what the return format is, how pagination behaves (e.g., start index semantics, page size limits), or what values node_path accepts. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional information.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Max prims per page' for count, 'Prim group filter' for group), which adds meaning beyond the schema names. However, it does not specify formats, defaults behavior beyond schema defaults, or the expected structure of node_path or attributes. It offers basic semantics but lacks depth.

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 clear action ('Read primitive data and attributes') and mentions pagination, which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from similar read tools like get_prim_intrinsics or get_usd_prim, and 'primitive' is ambiguous (Houdini vs USD). It is specific enough to understand the verb and resource, but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists arguments without any context about selection criteria, such as when to use get_prim_intrinsics for intrinsic attributes or get_points for point data. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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