get_td_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, that it remains callable when TouchDesigner is down, and that envoy_unresponsive / main_thread_stalled signal a live-but-frozen TD. It does not mention timeouts, latency, or whether the call is strictly read-only, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return contents and the key edge-case flags. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, listing connection state, crash detection, liveness, and config, plus the frozen-TD flag semantics. For a zero-parameter health-check tool this is fully adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (check whether TouchDesigner is running and Envoy reachable) and enumerates the exact signals returned (connection state, crash detection, process liveness, project config). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling job/node tools like convoy_get_job or convoy_ping, which target Convoy rather than TD/Envoy health.

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?

"Works even when TD is down" implies a diagnostic/health-check use case and hints that this is the tool to reach for during outages, but no alternatives are named and no when-not condition is given (e.g., versus get_convoy_status or convoy_ping). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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