td_project_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the output ('operator tree with wiring'), the offline/read-only nature implied by 'Read' and 'without TouchDesigner running', and clarifies the subtle behavior of `params` (only values differing from defaults, which is exactly what a saved project records). It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only safety profile is adequately 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?

Three well-ordered sentences: the first states the core action, the second states the return shape, and the third maps each optional parameter to its meaning. The final clause about saved project records is illustrative, not redundant, and the whole description is compact with every sentence earning its place.

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 the tool's purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return concept. The output schema covers detailed return structure, so it need not list return fields. Minor gaps remain around path format or error behavior, but for a read-only project inspection tool with a solid output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 fully—and it does. `file` is implicit as the .toe/.tox path, `path` is described as narrowing to a subtree with an example, `depth` is defined as child levels, and `params` is explained with an important semantic nuance about saved non-default values. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives an agent enough to set each parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('.toe or .tox from disk'), and a concrete result ('operator tree with wiring'). It also differentiates itself from live-session tools by explicitly noting it works 'without TouchDesigner running'. This is sufficient for an agent to distinguish the tool from siblings like td_project_write or td_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?

The description provides a clear usage context: reading saved project files from disk when TouchDesigner is not running. This implies the tool is for offline inspection, helping an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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