Get operator workflow guide

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only:' at the start. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that for unknown operators it 'returns candidate guide ids instead of failing,' which is a meaningful edge-case behavior beyond the annotations. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences, with the most important information front-loaded ('Read-only: return...'). It is concise, free of fluff, and every phrase adds value—the content, the examples, and the fallback behavior.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for a lookup tool. It communicates the core purpose, the return content, and an important edge-case behavior. No significant gaps remain; the schema handles parameter details and return structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though it implicitly relates to the 'operator' parameter via the fallback behavior. The schema fully documents each parameter, so no deduction is needed.

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 function: 'return an embedded TouchDesigner operator workflow guide with common inputs, outputs, examples, and next-operator suggestions.' This is specific with a verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_td_docs or get_td_info by focusing on workflow guidance. The fallback behavior for unknown operators further clarifies the purpose.

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 needing operator workflow guidance) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like get_td_docs or search_operators, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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