td_example

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 discloses that the tool reads 'offline' and describes a .tox example, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It doesn't mention what happens if no example exists for the given op_type, whether the output is textual or structured, or any failure modes. However, 'reads one offline' does provide some behavioral signal that this is a safe, local lookup.

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: a one-line purpose followed by a two-sentence elaboration explaining the source (.tox) and the value proposition (real usage reference vs parameter list). Every sentence earns its place — no fluff, no repeated tool name, and the key distinction is front-loaded.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown, but flagged as present), so the return structure may already be documented elsewhere. However, the description omits the depth parameter entirely, no failure-mode information, and no guidance on how to interpret the example. For a tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema, it is mostly usable but leaves a noticeable semantic hole around depth.

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 compensate for the two parameters (op_type and depth). It explains op_type implicitly as the operator for which the example is shown, but it never mentions the depth parameter at all. An agent cannot know from the description what 'depth' controls (likely traversal depth or recursion into the example network). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for op_type and none for depth.

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 the tool's function: 'Show a working example network for an operator.' It explains the resource (a .tox example file for TouchDesigner operators) and what it does with it (reads it offline and describes wiring/config). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, the verb 'Show' plus the specific focus on example networks distinguishes it from the many other td_* tools listed.

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 clear context: read an offline example .tox for an operator and use it as a 'real usage reference rather than a parameter list.' It implicitly guides the agent to use this when the user wants to see how an operator is wired/configured in practice, versus other tools like td_operator_schema (schema/params) or td_docs/td_python_api (reference docs). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, so not a 5, but the intended usage is reasonably clear.

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