TouchDesigner status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds context by listing the specific status items (build, project, timeline, capability flags), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides a clear behavioral scope.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the items checked. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose. A minor gap is that it does not describe the return format, but the listed items give a good sense of what to expect. The description is complete enough for a status check tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description's focus on what the tool checks is sufficient.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the distinct resources it covers: bridge health, TouchDesigner build, project, timeline, and capability flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_get_errors (which specifically retrieves errors) and td_list_operators (which lists operators).

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 checking overall status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context suggests it is a general health/status check, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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