TD Sample (live)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool operates via the td_mcp bridge and samples values, but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or whether it is strictly read-only (though sampling implies read-only). Additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the operator path is invalid) would improve 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and each parameter's role. It mentions the return type is a 'single value' but does not specify whether it is a number, string, or other. This minor gap is offset by the clarity of the sampling methods.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds value by linking the kind parameter to the underlying TouchDesigner methods (CHOP.chan and TOP.sample) and clarifying the context for u, v, and channel. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 that the tool samples a single value from a TouchDesigner operator, with two specific sampling kinds (chop_channel and top_pixel). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_operator or compare_operators, which do not offer live sampling.

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 explicitly says to use the tool 'to verify concrete output values without rendering a full frame' and explains the two kinds with examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is clear and alternatives are not needed given the tool's specificity.

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