list_usd_prims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation. It also omits what the result contains, what happens on errors, and how the filters combine during traversal. The phrase 'List ... with filtering' implies basic behavior without actually specifying the behavioral contract beyond the parameter list.

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 compact, front-loaded, and entirely scannable: one action sentence followed by a tightly formatted parameter list. No sentence is redundant, and no unnecessary context is included.

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, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the definition needs at least a statement of return format and expected traversal/filtering behavior to be complete enough for reliable invocation. The strong parameter semantics support usage but do not fill the gap around what the tool returns or what stage state is required.

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%, but the Args block supplies a meaningful one-line semantic for every parameter, including examples for prim_type and kind and a clear explanation of depth. This fully compensates for the typed schema, which only provides names and types.

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 opening phrase states a concrete action ('List') and a specific resource ('USD prims on a stage') plus a filtering scope. It clearly distinguishes it from mutation and parameter-focused tools in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast it with similarly named siblings like find_usd_prims or get_usd_prim.

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 gives no guidance about when to favor this tool over alternatives such as find_usd_prims or get_usd_prim. There are no prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or alternative-selection hints. With a large sibling list full of USD inspection tools, the correct choice is left to inference.

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