get_td_class_details

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

Annotations declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return structure ({name, type, description, methods, properties}), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second details the return format. No superfluous text.

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's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists for return format), the description adequately covers the purpose and return values. It does not mention error behavior or limitations, but for a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It implicitly mentions the class name but does not detail the response_format parameter.

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 retrieves methods, properties, and docstrings for a TouchDesigner class, with a specific return format. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_td_classes (list all classes) and get_td_module_help (module level help).

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_td_module_help instead). Usage is implied but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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