Check operator availability

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it retrieves data from a live API endpoint, works even when TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=0, and indicates which operators are deprecated or unavailable. This enriches the behavioral picture without contradicting the annotations.

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 four concise sentences, each contributing unique information: the reconciliation purpose, the flagging behavior, single-operator usage, and the environment-survival note. No wasteful repetition; information is front-loaded with the core 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 the main function, optional modes, and a special environment condition, making it reasonably complete for a reporting-style tool. It lacks an explicit description of the output format (e.g., flag structure), but given the simple nature of the tool and lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds a small usage note about passing a single operator name, but largely restates what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline without adding significant new semantic meaning.

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's purpose: reconciling the operator knowledge base against the live TouchDesigner creatable-optype list. It uses a specific verb ('Reconcile') and names both the knowledge base and the running TouchDesigner, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_operators.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking documentation against a running build) and how to use the single-operator mode. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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