get_last_modified_prims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scoping behavior ('from the edit target layer'), which is useful, but says nothing about how 'recently' is defined, ordering, or result limits beyond the count parameter. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the parameter and usage detail the agent needs.

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-format detail is not required. However, for a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum clarify what 'path' and 'count' mean and when to prefer this over other prim-listing tools. That detail is absent.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all: 'path' is never explained (path to what?), and 'count' (default 10) is never mentioned. The description does not compensate for the schema's total lack of documentation.

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 (get) plus resource (recently modified prims) and a scope qualifier (edit target layer), so the agent understands what it returns without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling list_usd_prims, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_usd_prims or lop_prim_search. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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