Get TouchDesigner Operator Examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) occur. The description is minimal and leaves the agent uninformed about safety or state changes.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff, but could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information (the verb and resource) earlier, though it already does so. It earns its place.

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 modest complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not explain what the returned examples look like (e.g., whether they include syntax highlighted code or code blocks). The absence of annotations and output schema leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the 'example_type' parameter as covering 'Python code examples, expressions, and usage patterns' and by providing illustrative operator name values (e.g., 'Noise CHOP'). This enhances the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Python code examples, expressions, and usage patterns'), and the context ('for a specific TouchDesigner operator'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_operator (which retrieves operator properties) and get_python_api (which provides API references) by focusing on usage examples.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or related tools such as get_operator or search_operators. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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