td_op_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Inspect' and 'live parameter values' suggest a read-only query of current runtime state, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, whether permissions are needed, or what happens if the path is invalid. The 'live' qualifier adds some context beyond the tool name, but more transparency would be possible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Inspect one operator in the running project' defines scope, and 'type, wiring, live parameter values' enumerates details. This is an exemplary length for a 1-parameter tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the main context ('running project'). The output schema handles return-value documentation, so that is not a gap. It would be more complete if it included a hint about path formatting or mentioned that no mutation occurs, but for a simple inspection tool the current state is nearly sufficient.

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 input schema only defines 'path' as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The description says 'Inspect one operator in the running project,' which strongly implies that 'path' is the path to that operator, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Still, it does not explain the expected format, whether it is a relative or absolute path, or provide any examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('one operator in the running project') and enumerates what will be observed: 'type, wiring, live parameter values.' This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that search for operators or describe schemas, and it is not a tautology.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need details about a specific operator) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools (e.g., td_operator_schema, td_search_operators) are better suited for different needs.

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