Get TouchDesigner editor context

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that only available fields are returned, unavailable UI fields are omitted with warnings instead of inferred, and that it does not mutate TouchDesigner. This informs the agent about the tool's non-inferring behavior and its side-effect-free nature, which is not fully captured by the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations alone.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail the return behavior, and end with exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact fields returned (project/build, perform mode, pane, active Network Editor, current/selected, rollover, viewport), how missing fields are handled (omitted with warnings), and what it does not do (dump topology or mutate). This fully equips an agent to understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe. The description does not need to detail parameters, and it doesn't, so it fully meets the baseline.

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: 'Read compact project and editor state for references such as 'this node', 'the selected node', and 'place it here'.' It specifies the exact verb (read), resource (project and editor state), and the use case (resolving references). It also distinguishes itself from topology-focused tools by explicitly saying it does not dump project topology, making it stand out among siblings.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need compact editor context for reference resolution. It also provides an exclusion: 'Does not dump project topology,' signaling that it is not for topology queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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