td_operator_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool performs a read operation ('读取'), which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the path is invalid. The behavior is understandable but minimally transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 lists the attributes returned (type, connections, location, child nodes, optional parameters), which provides a basic understanding of output content. However, without an output schema, it is incomplete—it does not specify the structure or data types of the return value. Given the tool has three parameters including optional filters, more detail on how these affect the output would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'path' has a description). The tool description does not explain how 'parameter_limit' and 'include_parameters' affect the output or how they relate to the listed attributes (e.g., 'optional parameters'). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool reads the type, connections, location, child nodes, and optional parameters of an operator. It uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('operator info'), and it distinguishes from siblings like td_get_parameters (which likely only reads parameters) 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as td_get_parameters or td_execute_python. It does not state any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision support for selection.

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