get_usd_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the output schema covers return values, but there is no mention of permission needs, whether it requires a live stage, or any other operational context.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 an output schema the return values are covered, but the absence of annotations and the two undocumented path parameters mean the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. Nothing explains how 'path' and 'prim_path' differ or when the tool applies.

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?

Both parameters ('path' and 'prim_path') have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no clarification. The two path-like parameters are ambiguous and their distinction is never explained, leaving a real gap for the agent to fill.

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 ('variant sets and selections for a USD prim'), which is clearly distinct from attribute/composition siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from related tools like get_usd_composition or get_usd_attribute.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_usd_composition or get_usd_attribute. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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