inspect_usd_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read, but it says nothing about what is returned, whether layers resolve references, or what the inspection output reveals for the given layer index.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and free of padding. The Args section is a reasonable format, though the single sentence could convey a bit more substance.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what inspecting a layer yields or the LOP/USD layer context. For a tool whose entire value is the returned inspection, this leaves a significant gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'node_path: LOP node path' and 'layer_index: Layer index (0 = root layer)' clarify both parameters, with the root-layer hint adding real meaning. The compensation is incomplete but meaningfully above the schema alone.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('USD layer'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_usd_layers, which likely also surfaces layer information, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_usd_layers or get_usd_composition, nor any prerequisites. The text only restates the arguments.

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