td_operator_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral nuances: it returns member parameters rather than groups, and it notes that TouchDesigner's own documentation describes groups while this tool returns the actual settable names. It also mentions the page filter. It leaves some ambiguity about hidden parameters, but overall the behavior is well conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The subsequent sentences add necessary context about the group/member distinction and the page filter without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.

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 covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and a key semantic trap. An output schema exists, so the return structure does not need to be described. The main gap is the undocumented `include_hidden` parameter, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the input schema. It explicitly explains the `page` parameter, and `op_type` is minimally implied by 'operator.' However, `include_hidden` is not described at all, and no details are given about expected values or usage for the main parameter. This is insufficient for a 3-param schema with no schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly states this tool returns the exact parameters of an operator, including names, defaults, menu options, and ranges. It also distinguishes itself from TouchDesigner's group-level documentation by explicitly returning the settable member parameters, making it distinct from sibling tools like td_op_info or td_set_params.

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 explicit guidance: 'Read this before creating or configuring an operator.' This tells an agent when to consult the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the highest bar for exclusionary guidance.

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