Validate operator chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'does not create or modify'. It adds specific behavioral context by listing validation targets (operator docs, connections, filters, version compatibility), going beyond 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 contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and read-only nature, second clarifies it does not mutate.

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?

With 5 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It explains what the tool validates against without needing to detail return values (covered by output schema).

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'optional expected operator family' is already in the schema). No additional semantic value from description.

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 explicitly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'ordered TouchDesigner operator chain'. It specifies what it validates against (operator docs, connections, filters, version compatibility) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is read-only and does not create or modify 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?

The description states when to use the tool (for validation) and notes it does not create or modify, guiding away from mutation tasks. However, it does not explicitly exclude other read-only alternatives (e.g., get_td_nodes, search_operators) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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