get_usd_prim_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the listed fields hint at the output, but nothing is said about permissions, failure behavior when the prim path is invalid, or whether the prim must be loaded/active.

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 key content (verb, resource, returned fields) comes first. It is efficient, though the terseness comes partly at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail.

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 described, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, ambiguous parameter names, and no annotations, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess about correct invocation.

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 both required parameters are undocumented. Worse, the two names ('path' and 'prim_path') are near-synonymous, so the description needed to disambiguate which is the stage/file path and which is the prim path — and it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get stats about a USD prim') and enumerates the returned fields (child count, attr count, active, payload), so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_usd_composition, get_usd_attribute, or lop_prim_get.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (get_usd_composition, get_usd_variants, inspect_usd_layer, get_usd_attribute). The agent must infer selection entirely from the tool name.

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