get_td_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'detailLevel+limit supported', hinting at customization, but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with no results. For a list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and key parameters efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description could add context about return format or usage examples. Currently it is minimal but sufficient for a simple list tool. It covers the basic functionality but lacks details on error handling or pagination (though limit is a param).

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds 'detailLevel+limit supported', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not provide additional meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'TouchDesigner Python classes/modules'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_td_class_details (single class) and get_td_nodes (different resource type).

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 implies usage for listing classes/modules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_td_class_details for detailed info on a single class. No exclusions or context are provided.

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