launch_td

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses that the call blocks until Envoy is reachable before returning. It does not cover other relevant traits such as behavior when an instance is already running, failure modes, or permissions.

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 tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, and the blocking behavior positioned last as a useful caveat. The parenthetical '(unpinned: the registry default's)' is dense but still efficient overall.

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 zero-required-parameter launch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scope logic and the readiness behavior. Absent is any note on return values or what happens on timeout failure, but the core is sufficient to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (timeout, project_path) are already fully documented. The description reinforces the project_path default (pinned instance) but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource (launch TouchDesigner) and precisely scopes which .toe it opens (this session's pinned instance, or registry default when unpinned). It partially differentiates from the sibling restart_td via 'start TD for the first time,' but never names restart_td, leaving the launch-vs-restart boundary slightly fuzzy.

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?

It supplies a clear when-to-use condition: 'start TD for the first time or restart after a crash.' However, it doesn't explicitly name or rule out the restart_td sibling, so the agent must infer which tool applies to a plain restart versus a crash recovery.

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