Search TouchDesigner knowledge

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

The description confirms read-only behavior (matching readOnlyHint=true) and adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return structure: normalized results with resource URIs and tool hints for deeper lookups. This gives the agent useful expectations about output and next steps without contradicting 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 two sentences: the first leads with 'Read-only' and states the broad scope, the second explains the return format and follow-up tool hints. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity, a fully documented schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers scope and return behavior. It does not need to explain the output schema's details, and the tool hints reference deeper lookups without overexplaining.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, including the surface enum and descriptions for query and limit. The description's list of knowledge surfaces essentially repeats the surface enum values, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') and resource ('embedded TouchDesigner knowledge router'), and enumerates the knowledge surfaces covered (operators, workflows, examples, versions, compatibility, techniques, classes, experimentals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_operators by being a broad cross-domain search rather than a domain-specific one.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to search across multiple TouchDesigner knowledge surfaces simultaneously. It lists the covered domains, giving clear context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as search_operators or search_python_api, nor does it state when not to use it.

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