get_usd_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a read-only get, but omits return format, permission needs, error conditions, and whether a loaded stage is required.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact Args section that earns its place by supplying parameter semantics absent from the schema. No filler or repeated information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior and return shape. It names the return concept and defines both parameters, but omits return structure, stage prerequisites, and error behavior, leaving clear gaps for a 2-parameter getter.

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 define the parameters, and it does label both required args meaningfully ('LOP node path', 'USD prim path'). It adds value beyond bare schema titles but does not give path syntax, examples, or edge-case meaning.

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: 'Get variant sets and selections for a USD prim.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic USD-getter siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_usd_prim, get_usd_composition, or get_usd_attributes.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description implies retrieval only, with no indication of when this is preferable to other USD inspection tools such as get_usd_prim or find_usd_prims.

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