Scaffold tool generator

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a local filesystem generator with no TD bridge call, and it returns an integration-hint. It does not fully explain overwrite conflict behavior, but the schema's 'overwrite' parameter covers that.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds essential detail (artifacts, unit test, return hint, no bridge call, local filesystem). No wasted 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the most important missing piece—the return value (integration-hint with import line, array entry, layer index). It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention behavior when overwrite=false and a file exists.

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 descriptive per-parameter text, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one-line idea' aligns with the required 'description' parameter but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as a 'Meta DX tool' with a specific verb ('scaffolds') and resource ('a new tdmcp tool file (xSchema + xImpl + registerX) and a matching offline msw unit test'). It also states the unique return value (integration-hint), distinguishing it from other scaffolding sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to generate a new tdmcp tool from a one-line idea, and explicitly notes what it does not do ('No TouchDesigner bridge call — pure local filesystem generator'). It does not name alternative scaffolding tools, but the behavior is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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