Draft recipe from operator chain

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explicitly stating 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge,' which reinforces the safe, non-destructive behavior. This addresses what the tool does not do, adding useful 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 sentence. It front-loads the key qualifier 'Read-only' and packs the core functionality concisely without extraneous words.

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 has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety profile. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail that. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive about prerequisites or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With high schema description coverage (78%), the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond mentioning the 'ordered TouchDesigner operator chain' which maps to the required 'chain' parameter. Individual parameters like id, name, tags are not elaborated, but the schema already describes them adequately.

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 converts an ordered TouchDesigner operator chain into a RecipeSchema draft, and explicitly notes it is read-only. The verb 'draft' and resource 'recipe from operator chain' are specific, and the read-only qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools that may modify or suggest chains.

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?

While the description clarifies the tool is read-only and does not write files or touch the TD bridge, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like suggest_operator_chain or validate_operator_chain. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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