Search TouchDesigner knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming 'Read-only' and describing the output format (normalized results with resource URIs and tool hints), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core purpose. No extraneous words; every phrase adds value. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but stated), the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the search scope, output format hints, and safety profile. Combined with thorough parameter schema, the description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context by listing the knowledge surfaces (operators, workflows, etc.) that align with the surface enum, slightly enhancing understanding beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and the extra context justifies a 4.

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 it is a read-only search across multiple specific TouchDesigner knowledge domains (operators, workflows, examples, etc.) and mentions the return format (normalized results with URIs and tool hints). This provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like search_operators and search_python_api.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_operators or search_python_api. While the broad scope is implied, there is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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