td_glossary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. 'Look up' clearly implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the 185-entry count sets scope. However, it does not disclose matching behavior (exact/partial/case-sensitive), what the limit does, or any response details beyond what an output schema might cover.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. The example list of representative glossary entries is not wasted; it concretely communicates the tool's scope and vocabulary domain.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough context: what it does, its scope, and sample terms. It does not explicitly explain parameter semantics, but the clearly named schema parameters and available output schema make the tool usable without major gaps.

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. It partially does by providing example term values ('Cook', 'CHOP', 'Time Slice'), which clarify the 'term' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's effect or the matching semantics, leaving some burden on the schema names.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('TouchDesigner terminology' / 'glossary entries'), and the 185 entries with examples make the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, but the glossary scope is distinct enough from the doc/operator/expression tools.

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 phrase 'vocabulary the rest of the docs assume' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when encountering foundational TouchDesigner terms that other docs rely on. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is well implied.

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