td_glsl

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

Describes the docked DAT resolution, read/write behavior, and compile error handling via return_compiled. Returns {stage, docked_dat_path, code, errors}. Does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). Could mention whether write replaces or appends code, but overall very transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. No wasted words; each phrase earns its place. The structure logically separates read vs. write and error handling.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: operation modes, parameter semantics, output structure, and error handling. No gaps remain; the tool's behavior is fully understandable without external references.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining the read/write duality of 'code,' the purpose of 'stage,' and the effect of 'return_compiled.' The schema alone would not convey this context.

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 'Read or write a GLSL shader stage, resolving the correct docked DAT.' It specifies the action (read/write) and resource (GLSL shader stage), and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the docked DAT resolution mechanism that no other tool mentions.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Omit code to read; pass code to write' and 'set return_compiled=true to re-cook and surface compile errors.' Also warns against guessing DAT names or setting .text directly. No alternatives needed as this is the only GLSL shader tool.

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