td_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals that other tools may silently pick the wrong instance, that a successful result won't show this, and that this tool cannot retarget. It also notes the missing MCP equivalent of CLI flags, which is a meaningful limitation.

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 front-loaded with the core question and purpose, then each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining when to use it, what it lists, and its limits. Despite its length, there is no filler; every sentence adds actionable context.

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 zero-parameter, read-oriented listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, return fields, and the actionable user guidance. No critical usage context is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the empty input schema already provides complete property coverage. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed.

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 by directly stating the tool's resource ('TouchDesigner instances') and its role ('which one these tools reach'), then explicitly says 'This lists all of them' with concrete fields. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling bridge tools that each target a single instance.

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 states exact triggering conditions: 'whenever the artist may have more than one project open' and 'always before believing that an edit went where you meant.' It also tells the agent what to do instead of aiming at a different instance ('name the port to the user and let them decide'), explicitly covering the when-not.

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