Watch node

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that missing TD attributes/channels are reported as warnings rather than failing, and that CHOP channels are only returned 'when available'. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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, with the first sentence stating the core action. The third sentence details the return structure, which is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it is well-organized and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 read-only sampling tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the warning behavior, and the return format, and the annotations handle safety. It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond the warning behavior, but none are necessary for this simple operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions parameter values and channel values in the output but does not describe individual parameters, matching the baseline 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 tool samples one TouchDesigner operator over a short interval and returns runtime state, readable parameters, and CHOP channels. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_node_state_runtime, so it slightly misses the top score.

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 usage for sampling operator state over time, and the read-only hint suggests safe monitoring. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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