td_flags

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and does well: it states this is a read operation, explains how to interpret unavailable (absence of flag vs off), and clarifies clone master vs cloneImmune. This gives an agent the exact semantics needed.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each paragraph adds specific value: use case, silent-failure explanation, and output semantics. The 'costs an hour' phrasing is slightly rhetorical but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides enough usage context and return-semantics detail. The main gap is explicit path format guidance, which is minor given the low complexity.

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 one required parameter, path, with no schema description and 0% coverage. The description refers to 'node' and 'operator' but never states that path is the operator path or what format is expected, so the parameter semantics are left largely to inference.

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 first sentence, 'Read the flags that decide whether a node runs and what is visible,' names a specific verb and resource and immediately tells an agent what td_flags is for. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from write-oriented siblings like td_set_flags.

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 triggers: 'Run this when a network looks right and produces nothing' and enumerates bypassed operators, display/render flags off, and cooking disabled. It explains why other inspections (parameter dump, td_network) miss this, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead.

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