td_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that execution blocks the main thread, that the full td namespace is available, and that the return value is a trailing expression or a variable named result. It does not mention that arbitrary Python could mutate the scene, but the blocking warning and execution semantics provide solid transparency beyond the raw schema.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: the execution environment, return semantics, and the blocking caution. No filler or repetition is present.

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 low-parameter exec tool, the description captures the essentials: what runs, what is available, what is returned, and what side effect to expect. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and how to shape the code input, though it could be more explicit about error behavior or the risk of scene mutation.

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 input schema only says the code parameter is a string, so semantic guidance must come from the description. It explains evaluation conventions, such as using a trailing expression or a result variable, and clarifies that the full td namespace is in scope. This materially helps an agent construct valid input despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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: "Run Python inside TouchDesigner and return its output." It clearly identifies what the tool does and how it differs from the structured sibling tools by presenting it as a general execution escape hatch.

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 explicitly advises "Reach for the structured tools first," which tells the agent to prefer siblings when possible. It also warns that this tool blocks TouchDesigner's main thread, a clear condition for when to avoid it. It does not name specific sibling tools or enumerate exact alternative conditions, so it stops slightly short of full 5-level guidance.

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