get_prim_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not — the output is prim-block text, not structured data, and is "grep-friendly" with type, position, bounding box, and all USD properties. It omits failure behavior for an invalid prim path, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource before the return-format detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and annotations plus the format note cover the important quirks (text output, grep-friendly). The only real gap is undefined behavior on a nonexistent prim path, which is minor for a read-only single-parameter tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including a concrete example path ("/World/Robot"), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 all properties of a specific prim) and scopes it ("all USD properties"), which implies a distinction from narrower siblings like get_prim_bounds or get_mesh_stats. It never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "all properties" — there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no routing to nearby siblings such as inspect_prim or get_prim_bounds. Adequate but leaves the choice between overlapping readers to inference.

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