describe_td_tools

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose but omits crucial traits such as being read-only, any side effects, auth needs, or what 'manifest' entails (list vs. structured output). Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but borderline under-specified. It front-loads the action but leaves many details to the schema, making it slightly too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the meaning of 'filesystem-oriented,' how filtering works, or what the output looks like. The agent would likely need to test or infer missing context.

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 coverage is 100%—all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It neither enhances nor harms clarity.

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 clearly states it generates a 'filesystem-oriented manifest of available TouchDesigner tools,' which conveys the core action and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what 'filesystem-oriented' means or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_td_info' or 'get_td_classes', so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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