td_expression_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the lookup purpose. It does not explain matching behavior, result format, syntax expectations, or any other operational details.

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 a single, scannable sentence with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise at the cost of missing useful context, but it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves usage context and parameter semantics unresolved. Given the large number of documentation-related sibling tools, this one-liner is not enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the right tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify what 'query' should contain (e.g., operator names, exact expressions, partial syntax) or how 'limit' affects results. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and names a distinct resource ('TouchDesigner expression and command syntax'), so an agent can clearly see what the tool targets. It does not explicitly contrast with documentation/glossary siblings like td_docs or td_glossary, so sibling differentiation is lacking.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as td_docs, td_python_api, or td_search_operators. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the tool's name and one-line description.

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