Get TouchDesigner Operator

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, what exactly constitutes 'comprehensive details' (e.g., parameters, outputs), or potential rate limits. Vague phrasing leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 sentences with no redundant phrasing. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and the optional version parameter without extraneous details.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to clarify what 'comprehensive details' includes, whether the operation is read-only, or how results are structured. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds value by noting that version shows compatibility notes, but provides no meaningful addition for name, show_tips, or show_examples beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline score of 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?

Description states 'Get comprehensive details about a specific TouchDesigner operator' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_operators (which lists) and get_operator_connections (which focuses on connections) by implying a more general detail retrieval, though not explicitly contrasting.

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?

Mentions optional version parameter for compatibility notes, providing some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_operator_examples for just examples) and no when-not-to-use advice.

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