get_td_class_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read-only operationaging, and the parenthetical hints at output controls, but the description does not state what information is returned, how formatting/detail levels behave, or any side-effect-free guarantee.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded first. There is no redundant wording, though the parenthetical is somewhat terse and could be more informative.

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?

The schema richly documents all parameters)Skip retries and enums, but the description itself is minimal morale and there is no output schema. It does not explain what kind of class/module information is returned or how detailLevel affects the response, so it is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents className, limit, detailLevel, and responseFormat. The description mentions only 'detailLevel+limit supported', which adds little semantic value beyond restating parameter names that the schema already describes.

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 action ('Get information') on a clear resource ('TouchDesigner class/module'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like get_td_classes or get_td_module_help, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship to sibling tools such as get_td_classes or get_td_module_help, leaving selection context entirely to the agent to infer.

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