Get TD Python class details

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: offline mode, return shape for unknown classes with {found:false, suggestions[]}, and the structured nature of the documentation. This exceeds 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the read-only designation and core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it returns, behavior for unknown names, and guidance on the alternative tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description fully covers purpose, return format, error behavior, offline operation, and the relevant alternative. No output schema exists, so the description adequately fills that gap by describing the return object.

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% with a clear description and examples for class_name. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('provides'), resource ('one TouchDesigner Python class'), and scope ('members + methods from embedded knowledge base'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_module_help by contrasting structured JSON versus Markdown.

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?

Explicitly names get_module_help as the alternative when Markdown is preferred, and implies this tool is for structured JSON output. This gives the agent a clear choice criterion.

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