Find TouchDesigner parameters

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: bounded search, point-in-time snapshots, secret redaction preventing value/expression matches, completeness caveat via scan_truncated/count_complete, and no fallback to raw Python. This goes well beyond annotation basics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key safety property ('Read-only:'), and each sentence adds distinct value: scope, snapshot semantics, and completeness/fallback caveats. No wasted 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?

For a 17-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers essential operational aspects: boundedness, snapshot semantics, secret redaction, completeness signals, and route requirements. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is appropriately complete.

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 covers 53% of parameters; the description maps to filter categories and notes that redacted secrets cannot satisfy value/expression filters. However, it does not explain undocumented parameters like limit, time_budget_ms, node_scan_limit, parameter_scan_limit, or non_default_only, so it only partially compensates for schema gaps.

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 specific verb ('search') and resource ('live TouchDesigner parameters') with explicit filter dimensions (node, operator type/family, parameter name, value, expression, mode, non-default state). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_td_node_parameters or find_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?

Provides clear context: read-only, bounded, bridge-side, point-in-time snapshots, and a prerequisite (current structured bridge route). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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