td_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior by stating 'Inspect' (implying read-only) and explicitly notes 'NON-DEFAULT params only', which is a non-obvious filtering behavior. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear from the verb.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose then lists specifics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description effectively covers the essential aspects of what is inspected. 'NON-DEFAULT params only' adds important context. It could mention output handling, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema has only one parameter 'path' with no description. The description's 'Inspect an op' implies that 'path' refers to the operator path, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify path format or examples, so it is not perfect.

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 action ('Inspect an op') and enumerates what it returns (type, errors, NON-DEFAULT params only, wiring, res/chans). This specific verb+resource and the listed aspects distinguish it from siblings like td_status or td_errors.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (inspecting an op's details) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over other siblings.

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