get_usd_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it spells out the row shape for both attributes and relationships, the `matched`/`truncated` return semantics, and the default-all behavior of attr_patterns and the current-frame default of time. It stops short of error behavior, performance cost, or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 most important information, the table/row shape, is front-loaded before the args list, and the examples earn their space by making glob usage concrete. It is slightly longer than necessary in the example sentence, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does by defining the row shape and the `matched`/`truncated` flags. Combined with full per-arg coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only failure-mode context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it documents all nine: node_path, prims with explicit `*` vs `**` glob semantics, attr_patterns, prim_type, relationships, time, full, traverse_instance_proxies, and limit. This is exactly the compensation a low-coverage schema demands.

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 ('Read the same attributes across many prims as one table') and immediately contrasts with the sibling it replaces ('instead of one get_usd_prim per prim'), so the agent can distinguish the batch read from the per-prim read without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_usd_prim) and the condition that selects this tool (many prims, same attribute), reinforced by three concrete use-case examples ('sourceName of every RenderVar', 'lpetag of every light'). The when-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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