Diff snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces this by stating 'Pure analysis — touches nothing in TouchDesigner.' It adds behavioral context about the diff output, including before/after values, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first sentence defines the tool's action and output, the second provides use cases and safety context. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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 complex nested parameters but no output schema. The description explains the purpose, usage context, and safety (pure analysis). It mentions the source function for snapshots and outlines the diff categories (nodes, connections, parameters). It could be more complete by specifying the exact structure of the returned diff, but overall it offers sufficient context for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('before' and 'after') having clear descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'Earlier snapshot (from snapshot_td_graph, include_params for param diffs)'). The tool description only briefly mentions the source function, adding minimal additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 compares two network snapshots and returns a readable diff of nodes, connections, and parameter changes. It explicitly references the source function (snapshot_td_graph) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform creation, editing, or other actions.

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 for using the tool: comparing snapshots before and after edits or versioning patches over time. It also states that it is pure analysis and touches nothing in TouchDesigner. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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