lop_prim_search

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 does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it searches recursively under the given path, or anything about scope/limits of the search.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the brevity tips into under-specification for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations.

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 explained, but with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves an agent unable to call this tool confidently or pick it over its many siblings.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions a 'pattern' but never explains its syntax (glob vs. regex vs. prim path expression), nor does it clarify what 'path' roots the search or what 'type_name' filters on.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (USD prims) and adds the matching condition. It is clear on its own, but gives no differentiation from siblings like list_usd_prims, lop_prim_get, or find_nodes, leaving the agent to guess which search/list tool applies.

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 among the many sibling prim/node search tools. The agent receives no signal about whether this is for stage prims vs. network nodes or how it relates to lop_prim_get.

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