describe_td_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds behavioral context: 'does not contact TouchDesigner', which confirms no network effects, and specifies the return structure. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 uses only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating functionality, providing context, and specifying return format. No redundant or extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 (implied by the return structure in the description) and high parameter coverage, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and its behavioral characteristics. The tool's simplicity (listing its own tools) means no additional context is necessary.

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 individual parameter descriptions (e.g., filter is case-insensitive substring, detail_level and response_format are enums with defaults). The description does not add much beyond the schema; it mentions the return structure but that relates to output, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tools this server exposes, with names, descriptions, and schemas.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_td_info' or 'get_td_nodes', which operate on different resources. It also provides context as a manifest for code-execution agents, making the purpose explicit and specific.

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 indicates it is safe ('Introspected locally; does not contact TouchDesigner') and implies use for discovering the tool surface. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_td_info', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not fully clarified.

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