bridge_open_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it refuses to launch if TD is already running unless 'force' is true. However, it does not explain what happens on success, whether it is blocking, errors thrown, or side effects like closing existing instances. It adds partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 stating the purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. No filler, proper front-loading, and every word adds value. It is optimally concise.

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?

For a relatively simple launch tool, the description covers the core behavior and its only parameter. However, it does not define 'resolved show', describe success/failure outcomes, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., TD installation). Given no output schema or annotations, it is acceptable but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 schema provides no description coverage (0%), just a type. The description compensates by explicitly explaining the 'force' parameter: 'Launch even if TD is running.' This fully covers the single parameter's purpose and meaning, exceeding the baseline requirement for low schema coverage.

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 'Launch', the resource 'show .toe', and the target environment 'TouchDesigner'. It uniquely identifies the tool's action among the many bridge_* siblings, which are mostly status/state/snapshot related, so a model can immediately distinguish it.

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 this tool is for opening a show, but it does not mention when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. Among the siblings, no other tool has an overlapping purpose, so the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, but there is no clear 'when to use' guidance beyond the implied action.

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