get_usd_composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the category of returned data (composition arc types) and 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about error behavior for a missing prim, permissions, or cost.

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 filler; the verb, resource, and returned arc types are all packed in without waste.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be restated), the tool has two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance. For a 2-required-param USD tool, the description is too thin to be complete.

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 neither of the two parameters (path, prim_path) is explained. The description's phrase 'for a prim' loosely implies prim_path, but the role of 'path' versus 'prim_path' is left entirely to inference, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') and resource ('composition arcs') and even enumerates the arc kinds (references, payloads, inherits, specializes) returned for a prim. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like lop_prim_get or inspect_usd_layer.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned. The description implies a read on a prim's composition but leaves the agent to guess whether it should call this versus lop_prim_get, list_usd_prims, or inspect_usd_layer.

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