art.tilemap.validate

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful specificity by naming the checks performed, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or how it signals failure. The implicit read-only nature of 'validate' helps, but is not explicitly confirmed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the action and object, the second lists the validation categories. There is no filler or irrelevant context; the only minor issue is the sentence fragment that follows the first sentence.

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 one-parameter utility this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it fails to mention whether validation returns a simple pass/fail, a list of issues, or something else. It also does not clarify prerequisites or assumptions about tileset.

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 the schema already documents the sole required parameter. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail about map_id beyond the schema, aside from echoing that it is the thing to validate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action — validate a MapSpecification against its tileset — and lists the specific categories of checks: missing tiles, invalid refs, style mismatch, object bounds. This clearly distinguishes it from a validation sibling like art.validate_style and from other tilemap tools that create or register specs rather than validate them.

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 core intent — validate a MapSpecification against a tileset — is clear enough for an agent to infer when it should be used. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives, preconditions such as a registered tileset, or where in a tilemap workflow validation should occur (e.g., before build_ops).

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