Get build-aware TouchDesigner docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond those: the source search order, the restriction of web fallback to a specific domain with 'latest-web' labeling, and the guarantee of never accepting filesystem paths or returning raw HTML. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradiction.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds critical information: read-only nature and sources, return contents and provenance, web fallback policy, and hard constraints. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, where it looks, what it returns, constraint boundaries, and fallback behavior. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed. It is fully contextualized within the large sibling set.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how 'section ids' enable bounded drill-down and by tying the 'query' to operator/Python/concept resolution. It also clarifies the 'web_fallback' and 'source' semantics beyond the schema, which aids parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Read-only: resolve compact TouchDesigner operator, Python API, or concept documentation' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the OfflineHelp corpus, embedded KB, and restricted web fallback, and by stating what it never does (filesystem paths, raw HTML).

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?

It clearly states the source resolution order (installed OfflineHelp first, then embedded KB) and when web fallback is applicable ('off by default, when explicitly enabled'), plus its restriction to docs.derivative.ca. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for different doc searches, but the context implies this is the primary docs-resolution tool, so guidance is strong.

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