td_project_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a vague summary by specifying output categories, the special handling of moved nodes, and the inclusion of DAT code line diffs. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the wording strongly implies an inspection tool, and the additional behavioral details are substantive.

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 three sentences with no fluff: the first states the core purpose, the second lists the types of changes reported, and the third clarifies a key behavioral nuance. Every sentence adds value and it remains highly scannable.

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?

An output schema is present, so explaining the return structure is unnecessary. The description covers the main operations and edge cases (moves, DAT code). It does not elaborate on parameter meanings or potential limitations, but these are partially inferable and the overall behavior is well conveyed. A minor gap remains for a tool with four parameters.

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 missing parameter documentation. It indirectly describes 'before' and 'after' via 'Compare two .toe/.tox files', and the behaviors related to show_moves and include_text are implied ('Nodes that were only dragged... counted separately', 'line diff of any changed DAT code'). However, it never explicitly maps these behaviors to parameter names, leaving room for 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?

Description states a specific verb ('compare') and a concrete resource ('.toe/.tox files') and enumerates what is reported: added, removed, retyped, rewired, re-parameterised operators, and DAT code diffs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_variant_diff, which focus on variants.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to compare two TouchDesigner project files and see actual changes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the domain is narrow enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. Lacks explicit exclusions but is not misleading.

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