get_stage_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by enumerating the returned fields (display_node, render_node, resolved_from, viewport_delegate, frame), which compensates for the absent output schema. However, it says nothing about error conditions, permissions, or cost, so it is adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded statement of purpose, followed by a focused explanation of what the returned fields mean, then a compact Args block. The backtick/field enumeration is dense but every sentence carries information; only minor formatting overhead.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what the response contains and how node vs network paths are interpreted. Only failure/permission behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity.

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% (the schema only has a bare 'Node Path' title), so the description must compensate. It does: 'node_path: LOP node or LOP network path (default "/stage")' conveys both accepted argument types and the default, adding real meaning over the schema title.

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: 'Get USD stage info from a LOP node, or from a LOP network.' The node-vs-network distinction clarifies the resource type. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like get_usd_layers, get_usd_prim or get_scene_info, so sibling selection still requires inference.

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 explains the semantics of the argument ('Given a network such as "/stage", the answer is about what that network displays'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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