Control Timeline Transport

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: it returns state after action (allowing confirmation) and includes a critical note about pausing freezing downstream chains. This extends beyond annotations, though more detail on side effects (e.g., impact on other timelines) could improve transparency.

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 concise (2 sentences plus note) with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and ends with a critical behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions, side effects, and return value. It lacks detail on the exact format of the returned timeline state, but the note about pausing and the action list make it functionally complete. Slight improvement could mention required parameters for seek/cue.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds context about the return value but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage and marginal added value.

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's purpose: drive the TouchDesigner timeline with verbs like play, pause, seek, cue, and rate. It differentiates from siblings by covering all transport actions in one tool, while siblings like create_scene_timeline or manage_cue handle creation or cue management.

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 clear context by listing the actions and noting that it returns timeline state for verification. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the scope is well-defined and the note about pausing freezing downstream chains helps with proper usage. No explicit when-not, but sufficient for most cases.

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