list_prims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by type but does not describe performance implications, recursion depth, or output format. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the description could have elaborated on return structure, but it falls short.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical information (action, resource, filtering) appears first. No superfluous text.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it omits any constraints like maximum depth, performance notes for large scenes, or pagination. For a listing tool, this information is relevant but absent. The description is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. However, it merely restates parameter names and provides trivial examples (e.g., 'Mesh', 'Xform'). The meaning of 'root_path' is repeated from the schema title, and 'prim_type' lacks explanation of valid values or behavior when null. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'prims', clearly indicating the action and object. It also mentions optional filtering by type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prim_info (which retrieves details for a single prim) or get_scene_info (scene-level data).

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?

The description states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. While the sibling list suggests related tools, there is no direct comparison or recommendation, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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