art.tilemap.resolve_tiles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It notes the resolution/verification nature of the operation, but it does not describe what happens for unknown tile names, whether the operation is read-only, or what failure behavior looks like.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the workflow hint is immediately useful.

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 is functional and ties the tool to the map-building workflow, but with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left guessing about return representation, invalid-name handling, and the role of x and y in the input intents array.

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 100%, so both tileset_id and intents are already documented with examples. The description confirms the overall mapping but adds little to individual parameter meaning 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 gives a specific action and resource: resolving semantic tile names into tileset local IDs. It also situates the tool in a workflow by stating it is for verifying tile names before building a map, making it clearly distinct from siblings like list_tilesets or create_spec.

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?

'Use to verify tile names before building a map' explicitly tells an agent when this tool fits. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough to support correct selection.

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