Diff snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Pure analysis — touches nothing in TouchDesigner,' but adds no substantial new behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention potential performance or memory implications.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage scenarios, and safety. No fluff or redundant details.

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 tool's purpose, usage workflow, and safety, and the schema provides input structure. It is fairly complete for an analysis tool with no output schema, though it could mention limitations or expected output format. Overall, it gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the schema descriptions for 'before' and 'after' already explain their role and origin (e.g., 'Earlier snapshot (from snapshot_td_graph, include_params for param diffs)'). The description does not add new input-specific semantics beyond referencing the source of snapshots.

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'), resource ('two network snapshots from snapshot_td_graph'), and output ('readable diff' with added/removed nodes, connection changes, parameter changes with before/after values). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_td_nodes by focusing on network snapshots rather than individual nodes.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Snapshot before an edit and after to see exactly what changed, or to version a patch over time.' This implies when to use the tool and what to prepare. It does not mention specific alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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