TouchDesigner Layout Network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool auto-arranges operators but does not clarify whether it is destructive (permanently changes node positions), reversible, or how it handles existing layouts. It also does not mention any side effects or constraints, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first directly states the purpose, the second covers default operation and prerequisite. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter layout tool, the description covers the basic function, default target, and a key requirement. However, it does not explain what 'auto-arrange' entails algorithmically or mention that it modifies nodes (destructive nature). Given no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps that could confuse an agent about side effects or reversibility.

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% for the single parameter 'parent', which already includes a description of its default value. The description repeats this default (/td_mcp/sandbox) and adds a requirement about the bridge, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, 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 explicitly states the tool auto-arranges operators in a TouchDesigner network for tidiness and readability. The resource (operators inside a network) and verb (auto-arrange) are specific, and the tool is clearly differentiated from sibling tools that focus on getting information, building, or other actions.

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 gives clear context: it operates on the sandbox COMP by default and requires the TouchDesigner bridge. It references td_status for checking the bridge. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools, though the purpose is self-evident.

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