Compare operator docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the 'Read-only' prefix aligns with them rather than adding new safety info. However, the description adds useful context about the embedded offline knowledge base and the exact comparison scope (overview metadata, shared/unique parameters), which goes beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and safety qualifier. Every clause adds value: read-only indicator, comparison target, offline KB, parameter types, and explicit distinction from live-node comparison.

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?

With a rich output schema, clear annotations, and a precise description of purpose and scope, the tool is fully contextualized. The distinction from compare_td_nodes and mention of the offline KB cover the main potential confusions. No material gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description adds contextual value by explaining the comparison nature and what "documented parameters" means, but it doesn't describe the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('two TouchDesigner operator types from the embedded offline knowledge base'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool compare_td_nodes by clarifying it compares documentation, not live node settings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for comparing offline documentation) and when not to (for live node parameter diffs), naming the alternative tool compare_td_nodes. This provides clear usage boundaries.

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