Search TouchDesigner Operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: supports multi-term queries, typo tolerance, version filtering, and multiple search types. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but as a search tool, it is expected to be read-only. The description adequately conveys its operational characteristics beyond the minimum.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists supporting features efficiently. While it packs many features, it remains clear and easy to parse. Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences for readability, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 has 8 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of capabilities. It mentions advanced contextual analysis and ranking, hinting at output ordering, and covers major filtering options. It does not detail pagination (limit parameter) or result format, but these are captured in the input schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its scope.

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 tool description provides a high-level summary of supported features (e.g., 'category/subcategory filtering, parameter search') but does not add new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions in the schema already state. It reinforces but does not extend the schema explanations.

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 'Search for operators' using a specific verb and resource. It lists advanced features (multi-term, filtering, typo tolerance) that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_operators, which likely provides a simple list, or get_operator, which retrieves a single operator. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implies when to use this tool (for advanced search with filtering and ranking) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools like list_operators for simpler needs. The listing of features gives context, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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