td_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explains that `abs` is absTime.frame not project frame, that stepping the timeline does not move it, that a paused root timeline stops it, and that `(!)` on the range indicates playback stops short of `end`. These are behavioral nuances an agent would otherwise not know.

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 front-loaded with the core status purpose, followed by dense but purposeful caveats. Each sentence adds distinct operational value; it is somewhat long but justified given the interpretive warnings needed.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with an output schema, the description completes the picture by explaining how to read the timeline line, what `abs` means, and how range warnings behave. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing param details and instead focuses on output interpretation, which is the only meaningful semantic content for this tool.

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 the tool reports three status dimensions: TouchDesigner reachability, the open project, and timeline playing state. It is distinct from action-oriented siblings like td_timeline_run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close status siblings like td_timeline_status or td_health.

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?

It gives actionable guidance on when to consult this tool: before trusting a live CHOP between two calls, and how to interpret playing/paused states. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool, but the contextual advice is concrete and useful.

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