measure_chain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry disclosure weight. It explains what is scanned and detected, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the returned 'truth' looks like, or whether any state is changed; the 'measure' prefix only weakly implies safety.

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?

Two short sentences carry the purpose and the parameter semantics with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded before the parameter detail.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the missing return shape, effect on state, and error behavior are meaningful gaps. The single parameter is well covered, but the description leaves an agent unsure what calling it will actually return or change.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully documents the only parameter: path is a string or null, it is the root container to scan, and its default is '/'. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.

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 concrete function: it reports per-device topology truth (Bypass/Src/Srcpath) and detects chain orphans for chained COMPs, with a root path scope. This distinguishes it from generic measure siblings, though the term 'truth' is jargon and no explicit verb appears outside the tool name.

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 use case is implied by the first line: use it when you need per-device chain topology/orphan detection in a TouchDesigner COMP container. However, it never says when not to use it or how it contrasts with measure_verify, measure_gpu, or measure_cooktimes.

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