Suggest Next TouchDesigner Operators

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns connection instructions, complexity, node count, and minimum version. However, it does not explain the basis of suggestions (e.g., common usage patterns) or potential side effects like network state dependency.

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 conveys purpose and output. It is well-structured but could be slightly improved by listing the output fields more clearly, though it remains concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete and sufficient for the agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'current_operator' with a description. The tool description adds value by providing examples ('Movie File In TOP', 'Constant CHOP'), giving agents a better sense of valid inputs beyond the schema.

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's purpose: providing workflow suggestions for operators following a current one, and lists specific return fields (connection port instructions, complexity rating, node count, version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_operator_connections or compare_operators.

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 usage when the user has an operator and wants to know common next steps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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