Find TouchDesigner nodes

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

Discloses behavior beyond annotations: it's 'Read-only' (consistent with readOnlyHint), notes it returns '{count, truncated, matches/paths, search_metadata} without transferring topology' (efficient/compact), and states 'older bridges fall back only to structured list/topology reads' (fallback behavior). This adds significant context without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, return format/fallback, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the main function, and every sentence adds value. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite 13 parameters, the description covers purpose, return fields, fallback behavior, and sibling differentiation. With a full output schema and 100% parameter descriptions, nothing critical is missing. The guidance about older bridges addresses edge cases in tool availability.

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 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain individual parameters. The description does synthesize key concepts ('name/path glob', 'exact or partial operator type', 'family', 'bounded depth') which map to schema params, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it's a node search tool with specific filter capabilities: 'compact bridge-side node search by name/path glob, exact or partial operator type, family and bounded depth.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_td_nodes and get_td_topology and when to use each.

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 guidance: 'Prefer this over get_td_nodes when looking through a sub-tree; use get_td_topology only when you need wiring.' Also notes fallback behavior for older bridges, so the agent knows when this tool's advanced features may not be available.

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