Get build-aware TouchDesigner docs

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

The description adds rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: source resolution order (OfflineHelp first, then embedded KB), output nature (section ids, build provenance), web fallback policy (off by default, restricted to docs.derivative.ca, labeled as latest-web), and constraints (never accepts paths, never returns raw HTML). This fully discloses the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core function. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the main purpose, the second describes the output and provenance, and the third covers web fallback and constraints. No fluff or redundancy.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the source hierarchy, output format hints, safety constraints, and web fallback behavior. The output schema handles return value specifics, so the description only needs to provide high-level context, which it does thoroughly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the query constraint ('Never accepts a filesystem path') and the web_fallback behavior ('restricted to docs.derivative.ca and labeled as latest-web'), which enriches the meaning of the source and web_fallback parameters. It does not duplicate schema descriptions.

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: 'resolve compact TouchDesigner operator, Python API, or concept documentation from the installed OfflineHelp corpus first, then the embedded KB.' It specifies the resource type (documentation), the sources, and the output (section ids, provenance). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_td_info or search_operators by emphasizing the offline-first, build-aware nature.

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 implies when to use the tool (for documentation lookup) and provides constraints like 'Web fallback is off by default' and 'Never accepts a filesystem path.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for web docs, use search_touchdesigner_knowledge'). Guidance is present but implicit, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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