td_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this richly: it reveals persistence across TouchDesigner restarts, that only bridge-reaching calls are recorded, that offline tools leave no trace, and what failures=True/summary=True semantically return. There is no annotation contradiction to worry about.

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place by adding a usage, behavioral, or caveat detail. The front-loaded summary gives an immediate mental model, and the short paragraph breaks keep it scannable despite the density.

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 tool with no annotations, four parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the core decision logic, persistence, recording limitations, and parameter behavior for the non-obvious flags. The only minor gaps—limit and method—are low-risk because their names and defaults make them self-explanatory, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate. It strongly explains failures=True and summary=True, including what they return and what questions they answer. However, limit and method are never tied to their parameters; their semantics are left to inference from names and defaults, making the compensation partial rather than complete.

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 clear, specific definition: it is a trail of every bridge call this host has made and how it went. It explicitly contrasts with td_status, which shows only the last call, and with offline tools that leave no trace, so an agent can tell exactly what td_log is and is not.

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 concrete triggers: use it when something is wrong and you don't know what you did, when you are about to repeat a failed call, or when you need to spot method-level patterns via summary=True. It also names alternatives and caveats—td_status for last-call view and offline tools that never reach the bridge—so the decision boundary is explicit.

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