Get TouchDesigner errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the 'after edits' context but does not clarify whether the tool clears errors or only gathers them, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core action, scope, and timing efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned errors look like (e.g., format, count, or structure). It covers the tool's purpose and timing well but lacks detail on output or recursion behavior, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

Only 50% of parameters are documented in the schema (path has a description; recurse does not). The description does not compensate for the missing recurse semantics, and only indirectly references path via 'under a network'. This leaves the recurse parameter meaning unclear.

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 uses a specific verb 'collect' with clear resources ('errors, warnings, and script errors') and scope ('under a network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like td_status or td_inspect_operator, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'after edits' provides clear usage context, implying this tool is for checking a network's error state after modifications. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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