td_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description conveys the basic scope, but it does not mention whether depth controls recursion, whether path must point to a component, or any caveats about how the network is represented. The safe behavior is implied but not explicit.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simple parameter set.

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 description gives a clear mental model but omits practical details such as depth semantics, path scope, and any interaction with sibling project tools. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need explanation, but the description still leaves invocation details under-specified for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 gives partial context: 'inside a component' hints that `path` refers to a component, and 'wired' hints at the purpose of `depth`. However, it does not explain what depth values mean, how path resolution works, or how defaults behave.

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 ('List') and specifies the resource ('operators inside a component') plus the relation ('how they are wired'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like td_search_operators and td_operator_schema, which are about finding or describing operators rather than showing a network.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrasing implies inspection of a component's internal wiring, but it never states when this tool is preferred over related tools or when it should not be used.

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