Get TouchDesigner tutorial

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

The description explicitly declares read-only behavior, matching the annotations, and adds valuable behavioral details: content cap (~30K chars), sections_available list, and section-based drilling. This goes beyond the annotation to set expectations for return content.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence covers primary operations concisely; the second efficiently explains the include_content behavior and section guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and the special content-handling behavior. The only minor gap is explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete.

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?

While the schema already documents all 5 parameters, the description adds the relationship between include_content and section, explaining the content cap and sections_available list. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 three concrete actions (list, search, retrieve) with a specific resource (embedded TouchDesigner tutorials) and notes retrieval by id/name. This distinguishes it from generic doc retrieval tools like get_td_docs.

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 explains when to use list, search, or retrieve modes and gives guidance on using include_content with section to avoid pulling full documents. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like get_td_docs or search_touchdesigner_knowledge.

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