Collect project assets

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

The description discloses that the TD scan is read-only, but writing the manifest (when out_manifest is set) may overwrite an existing file, aligning with destructiveHint=true. It also reveals the fallback heuristic for file detection and notes it is UNVERIFIED across TD builds, which is critical behavioral context beyond the 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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information: scan target, reporting details, read-only nature, file-writing condition, and detection heuristic caveat. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 complexity (scanning a network, detecting multiple dependency types, varying par support) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: scope, reporting, mutability, heuristic limitations, and the style_supported flag. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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% for three parameters. The description adds context: explains parent_path as root of subtree, out_manifest as optional write path (empty means no file), and include_missing_only as filter. This adds meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 tool scans a COMP subtree for external file dependencies (movie/image, fonts, LUTs, externaltox) and reports each referenced file with node+parameter and existence status. The verb 'scan' and specific resource 'COMP subtree' are precise, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like create_media_bin or get_td_nodes.

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 when an agent needs to inventory external file dependencies in a TouchDesigner network. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Given the specificity, the usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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