Get TouchDesigner tutorial

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as content capping at ~30K chars, the sections_available list, and the drill-down via section. This complements the readOnlyHint annotation well and provides actionable information.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds significant information without 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 5 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (list/search/retrieve, content capping, section drilling) comprehensively. It does not leave major gaps for typical usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the use of include_content and section together, including the capping and drilling behavior, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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: 'list embedded TouchDesigner tutorials, search tutorial metadata/content, or retrieve one by id/name.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishes from siblings by being a read-only retrieval tool among many creation and editing tools.

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 usage context: it's read-only and offers list, search, and retrieve modes. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to specific alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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