Tileio

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by scoping exactly what is and isn't returned, though it says nothing about behavior for unknown ids or whether variants/palettes may be empty.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the identifier and resource, followed by the return scope and a single exclusion. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating returned fields and the notable omission of prompt/source. It falls slightly short on error behavior for missing ids and on what an entry's 'parameters' actually look like.

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?

Single required id parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the source (search_layers) and gives an example. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Details of one layer by id') and enumerates the returned contents (description, fonts, blocks, palettes/variants with index, parameters). The explicit negative scope ('Does not include the prompt or source') separates it cleanly from get_prompt.

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?

Usage context is clear: fetch a single layer by id, with the schema pointing to search_layers as the id source. The note that prompt/source are excluded implicitly routes the agent to get_prompt, but no explicit alternative or when-not statement is given.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds quota mechanics the annotations cannot express: free layers unlimited, premium layers counted once per UTC day with per-tier caps (1/3/30/none) and a same-day re-fetch being free. It does not clarify the returned medium (raw text vs structured), but the quota disclosure is significant context an agent needs before spending a daily credit.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the directive ('Follow it as the build brief'), then the cost rules. The long quota sentence is dense but every clause carries a distinct, actionable constraint.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the remaining burden is return-shape and cost semantics; the description covers the cost side thoroughly and implies a text prompt deliverable via 'the full prompt' and 'follow it as the build brief'. Slightly more on the return format would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond it: it characterizes palette as covering templates, sections, pages, elements and gradients, and variant as covering 3D scenes, backgrounds and vectors, and frames them as an 'or' choice between two families. That classification is absent from the schema and disambiguates the two integer parameters.

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?

States a specific resource (the full build prompt for a layer) and enumerates what it spans (framework, palette families, variant families), so an agent knows it returns a build brief rather than layer metadata. It does not explicitly name get_layer as the contrasting sibling, leaving that distinction to be inferred from the schema's 'from get_layer' references.

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?

'Follow it as the build brief' implies the intended downstream use, and the quota paragraph helps an agent decide whether to re-fetch. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_layer (metadata) or how to pick target/palette/variant sequences; usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context about what the returned values are for (feeding get_prompt's target), but says nothing about the response shape, whether all frameworks are returned, or any auth/scope constraints.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the most useful signal (the id to pass as target) lands early. The phrasing as a sentence fragment without an action verb costs it a point against a clean front-loaded statement.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden; it conveys that entries are frameworks paired with an id but not whether it is a flat list, what other fields appear, or whether the list is exhaustive. Adequate but with clear gaps for a discovery 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description instead clarifies what the *returned* id is consumed by, which is useful but belongs to a different concern.

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 identifies the resource (frameworks that get_prompt can write a layer for) and the key return value (the id to pass as target), but it is a noun phrase with no verb — it never states that this tool *lists* those frameworks. An agent can infer the purpose from the name/title, but the description itself does not deliver a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'with the id to pass as target' hints that this is a lookup step feeding get_prompt's target parameter, and it names that sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against search_layers or get_layer.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the daily-limit interaction with get_prompt on premium layers and the free-tier escape hatch. The return payload is also summarized, which annotations would not cover.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose first, return shape second, cost/limit caveat last. The return-field list is long but each item is distinct schema-less information (no output schema exists), so nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields plus the catalogue-number explanation. For a 6-parameter, all-optional search tool that is close to complete; only the relationship to sibling lookups (get_layer) is left unstated.

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 83%, so the schema carries most of the load (query matching semantics, limit 1-50, offset paging are all documented there). The description still adds value the schema lacks: the catalogue number is the N° shown on tileio.com, and tier "free" means no limit. That is meaningful extra 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Tileio library by free text and filters') and enumerates what comes back (layer ids, catalogue number, title, category, tier, tone, URL). It clearly reads as a discovery tool, but never explicitly contrasts itself with get_layer or list_targets, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives actionable context: pass tier "free" to avoid the daily limit, and warns that get_prompt on a premium layer counts toward that limit. It stops short of explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_layer guidance, but the discovery-vs-fetch split is easy to infer.

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