get_usd_composition

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing the expected output, side effects, requirements like a cooked LOP node, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 definition is minimal and front-loaded, with the one-line purpose followed by args. It is efficient with no redundant wording, though the extreme brevity leaves out necessary explanatory content.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It lacks context about what composition arcs are, what the return value looks like, and when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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 the schema's silence. It lists node_path and prim_path but adds no meaning beyond the parameter names; it doesn't specify path formats, naming conventions, or relationships. The agent gains no semantic value beyond the schema's titles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource 'composition arcs for a USD prim' (a well-known USD concept). It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it doesn't differentiate it from sibling USD inspection tools like get_usd_prim_stats or get_usd_layers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative USD inspection tools. There is no mention of suitable contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent without a basis for selecting it over siblings.

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