list_usd_prims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: instanced geometry is invisible to the default walk and lives under prototypes. It says nothing about read-only safety, result ordering, or result size/pagination, so it adds partial rather than complete behavioral context.

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?

One-line purpose first, then the caveat that qualifies it, then parameter docs — a sensible front-loaded structure. The Args list is justified by 0% schema coverage, though the prose could be tightened slightly.

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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every parameter and the one behavior most likely to cause a wrong result (empty listings from instanced prims). It stops short of describing the returned prim entries or ordering, which would complete the picture.

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 largely does: the Args block documents all six parameters, supplies examples for prim_type ('Mesh', 'Xform') and kind ('component', 'group'), defines depth as max traversal depth, and explains the non-trivial traverse_instance_proxies flag. It omits the role of the node_path requirement and root_path's '/' default, so it is not perfect.

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 USD prims on a stage') plus the scoping modifier ('with filtering'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as find_usd_prims or get_prims, so it falls short of the top band.

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 instanced-geometry paragraph gives conditional guidance ('Set traverse_instance_proxies to list the prims under it'), which is genuine when-to-use context for one flag. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over find_usd_prims or get_usd_prim, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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