Inspect a TouchDesigner operator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. It adds the set of inspected attributes, providing useful context about the tool's scope. It does not disclose behavior like defaults for parameterLimit or error handling, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, enumerates attributes without waste. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description gives a broad overview of what is read, but without an output schema or parameter descriptions, the agent may lack clarity on optional parameters and return structure. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is only 25% with only 'path' described. The description mentions 'parameters' as an output category but does not explain the optional parameters (parameterLimit, includeChildren, includeParameters). Since the description carries the burden for low schema coverage, it falls short.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates resource attributes (type, flags, inputs, outputs, parameters, dimensions/channels, errors), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like td_get_errors or td_status.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions are provided. Usage is implied by the enumeration of inspected attributes, but the description does not contrast with similar tools such as td_status or td_get_errors.

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