Search Experimental Techniques

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds context by specifying searchable fields (keyword, operator name, tag, code pattern) and categories, but does not disclose safety traits like read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination. It is neither contradictory nor detailed, warranting a middle score.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It efficiently conveys scope and searchable attributes without unnecessary words, though a slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 the tool's domain and search capabilities but omits expected output format, result ordering, or pagination details. Given no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description reinforces param purposes (e.g., categories map to category_filter) but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. 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 searches across TouchDesigner experimental technique categories, listing specific domains like GLSL, GPU compute, machine learning, etc. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_operators by explicitly targeting experimental categories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as search_operators or get_experimental_techniques, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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