get_usd_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the LOP node must be cooked/selected, how many layers are returned, or what happens on an invalid node_path. Significant behavioral gaps 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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the single argument. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic contract but omits the return shape (layer names? identifiers? order?) and any dependency on stage/cook state. Adequate but with clear gaps given zero annotation support.

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% and the only parameter is documented merely as 'Node Path' in the schema. The description does add real meaning by stating it is a 'LOP node path', clarifying the expected domain (a LOP node, not an arbitrary path). That is a genuine addition, but no format example or validation behavior is given.

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 ('List all layers in a USD stage'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings like get_usd_composition or inspect_usd_layer. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the closely related inspect_usd_layer, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 on when to use this versus inspect_usd_layer, get_usd_composition, or the other USD introspection tools. The description only documents the argument, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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