Get TouchDesigner editor context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds significant behavioral details: unavailable UI fields are omitted with warnings instead of inferred, and the tool returns only available fields. This transparency about inference behavior and scoped output is valuable and not present in 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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns/omits, and what it does not do. No redundant fluff.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the exact fields returned and explains the warning behavior. It also clarifies exclusions (no topology) and safety (no mutation), making it a complete standalone description for a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. No extra credit needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact project and editor state'), and clearly lists the fields it returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not dump project topology, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool ('for references such as...') and what it will not do ('Does not dump project topology'), but it does not name an alternative tool like get_td_topology. This is a clear contextual guidance, but lacks explicit alternative naming for a 5.

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