Moodboard → generative system

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the use of a vision-capable local LLM when configured, a deterministic fallback grammar, and a specific quirk ('preview may read 0 on a paused timeline'). These context-rich additions exceed the bar set by the 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains the process and fallback, and the third gives a practical tip. No unnecessary words; the generator list is dense but informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return value or result of the build, but it does not. However, it covers inputs, process, fallback, and a behavioral quirk, making it fairly complete for a complex tool. A return value mention would push it to 5.

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?

The schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'palette hint' and the generator enum, but these are already detailed in the schema. The preview quirk is unrelated to parameters. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Ingest 1..6 moodboard images and build a matching generative system in TouchDesigner') with a specific resource and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by referencing moodboard input and a generator enum, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when building a generative system from moodboard images), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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