describe_td_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core action (generating a manifest) and a qualifier ('filesystem-oriented'), but does not explain what that orientation means, whether the operation is read-only, or how results are organized. This is a partial disclosure with a noticeable gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple manifest-listing tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the manifest contains and how the parameters shape it. The unexplained 'filesystem-oriented' term and absence of any return-value detail leave an agent uncertain about the response structure and tool scope.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how filter, detailLevel, or responseFormat affect the generated manifest, leaving parameter interpretation entirely to 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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('manifest of available TouchDesigner tools'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific details. However, the modifier 'filesystem-oriented' is unexplained and may confuse an agent about the exact scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_td_classes or get_td_info. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and purpose.

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