TouchDesigner List Network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It correctly indicates that the tool reads network contents with no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if the parent path is invalid or the bridge is unavailable), which would strengthen transparency.

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 convey purpose, return values, default, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and result.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned. It covers the default parent, prerequisite, and essential context for a list operation. No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description only adds the default value for 'parent' ('/td_mcp/sandbox') which is already in the schema's description. Since the schema carries the burden, a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('operators inside a TouchDesigner network'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_operators' by focusing on a parent COMP's children. The return fields are clearly enumerated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states the default parent and a prerequisite ('requires the TouchDesigner bridge to be running, see td_status'). It implies when to use this tool (e.g., to inspect a specific network's contents) without explicitly excluding alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling differentiators.

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