get_usd_prim_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool counts prims by USD type under a root path, but fails to explain whether it traverses all descendants, includes the path itself, or requires a cooked node. It also does not disclose the output format or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is helpful but incomplete.

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 one clear sentence followed by a terse argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary filler while still providing enough information to identify the tool and its inputs.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic read-only tool with only two string parameters and no output schema. It states the purpose and gives brief parameter explanations. However, it lacks details about the exact return shape (e.g., dict of type → count), potential error conditions, or whether a cooked node is required. Because the tool is simple)Skip, this is not a major shortfall, but there is room for improvement.

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 adds a minimal explanation for each parameter: node_path is described as 'LOP node path' and prim_path as 'Root prim path to gather stats from.' The latter clarifies that prim_path serves as a root for aggregation, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, the explanations are terse and do not specify path syntax or edge cases, so they only partially compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Get prim counts by USD type under a root path.' It identifies the specific verb ('get'), the resource ('prim counts by USD type'), and the scope ('under a root path'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_usd_prim, list_usd_prims, and get_attrib_stats. The purpose is unambiguous and leaves no room for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., the LOP node must exist or be cooked), nor does it contrast with similar tools that could also retrieve prim information. The only implied usage is 'call this to get counts,' but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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