Get technique detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds the context of 'embedded' technique packs, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or potential errors. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the read-only safety qualifier, and precise with no filler words.

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 the simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'technique pack' or navigation between category and technique_id, but it suffices for basic use.

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 mentions optional code snippets and setup/workflow details, mapping to include_code and include_setup, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own property descriptions.

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 inspects embedded TouchDesigner technique packs and individual techniques, using the specific verb 'inspect' and naming the resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on technique pack internals.

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 clear context for when to use this tool, i.e., for read-only inspection of embedded technique packs and techniques. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use it, falling short of a 5.

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