Score a TouchDesigner build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that: 'Composes existing bridge endpoints — creates nothing' and mentions optional LLM critique behavior when configured. It also states deterministic suggestions, all consistent with annotations, with no 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds efficient behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes value.

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 full schema descriptions, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, safety, and key behaviors. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only scoring tool.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds some context (e.g., the fixed rubric and LLM critique condition), but it does not elaborate on individual parameters such as scopePath or targetFps, which are already well-documented in 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'score a built network 0–100 on a fixed rubric (palette/motion/complexity/errors/perf)' and lists the outputs ('per-criterion sub-scores plus deterministic improvement suggestions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that mutate or optimize, emphasizing a read-only assessment role.

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 context is clear: this is for read-only scoring of a built network, which implies assessment use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs get_td_performance or optimize_performance). The 'creates nothing' note gives implicit exclusions but not explicit guidance.

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