get_usd_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the parameter, but does not mention side effects, error handling, return format, or any constraints (e.g., whether the stage must be loaded). This is insufficient for a read operation that could have edge cases.

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 extremely concise, with the main action front-loaded and a structured Args section. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. This is a model of efficient writing.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description still leaves gaps. It does not describe what the returned list of layers looks like (e.g., names, paths), nor does it mention potential errors or special cases like an invalid node path. Given the simplicity, more context could be expected, especially since the agent may not have prior USD 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?

The description includes an Args section that clarifies 'node_path' as 'LOP node path', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Node Path'. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description should provide more detail about the expected format or examples. The added explanation is helpful but minimal.

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 clearly states the action ('List all layers') and the resource ('a USD stage'), which is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the resource 'layers' is unique among the provided siblings, so an agent can infer its purpose without confusion.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_usd_prims or get_stage_info. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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