get_td_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that, nor does it disclose any other behaviors such as output format, error handling, or performance implications. For a read-only tool this is minimal but still insufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the verb and resource, which is good, but it lacks the detail needed to be fully useful. It is not verbose, but it is also not appropriately sized because it omits crucial context that would make it more actionable.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'server information' includes, what the response looks like, or when to use this tool relative to others. The lack of any behavioral or usage context makes it insufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters (detailLevel and responseFormat) with enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get server information from TouchDesigner' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (server information). It is specific enough to avoid being a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_td_nodes or get_td_node_errors, which also retrieve TouchDesigner data. The lack of sibling distinction holds it back from 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 the many siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent decide between get_td_info and get_td_nodes or get_td_class_details. This leaves the agent to infer usage, which is inadequate.

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