td_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a non-mutating read/search operation, that the documentation is 'mirrored offline', and that query results are 'matching excerpts' while page reads return full articles. This goes beyond the schema and covers the essential behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences provide necessary mode details and scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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?

For a read-only documentation tool, the description covers the main functionality, both usage modes, the scope, and gives examples. It omits the `limit` parameter and doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools, but those are minor gaps, especially since the output schema exists to cover return shapes. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It clearly explains `page` and `query` with examples, but does not mention `limit` at all. This leaves the agent to guess that `limit` controls result count. The description compensates well for the two main parameters but not completely for all three.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search or read TouchDesigner's documentation') and immediately clarifies the two modes: passing `page` reads one article in full while `query` searches all pages and returns excerpts. It also distinguishes itself from operator-specific siblings by noting it 'covers concepts and guides, not just operators.' This is clear and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use `page` versus `query`, with concrete examples. The phrase 'not just operators' implies a broader scope than sibling tools like td_search_operators, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating 'use this instead when...' so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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