Suggest operator chain

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses valuable behavioral traits: it operates offline, returns connection hints and next tool hints, and explicitly does not create nodes. This adds meaningful context about data source and side-effect-free behavior, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 exceptionally concise, delivered in two short sentences. It front-loads the critical 'Read-only' signal, then efficiently conveys the tool's function, data source, return type, and non-destructive nature. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential context: purpose, read-only nature, offline operation, and return value summarization. It is well-rounded but could improve by explicitly guiding selection against sibling tools like search_operators or validate_operator_chain, though this is a minor gap.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (goal, family, max_steps, seed_operator) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 tool's purpose: suggesting a small ordered TouchDesigner operator chain for a creative or technical goal, using offline docs and workflow patterns. It distinguishes itself from mutation tools by explicitly noting it returns hints and does not create nodes, setting it apart from siblings like create_node_chain and validate_operator_chain.

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 appropriate usage for planning and suggestion scenarios, emphasizing read-only behavior and the absence of node creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for validation or creation, and doesn't state when one should prefer this over search_operators or get_operator_workflow_guide, leaving exclusions implicit.

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