get_tilemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads and returns a grid, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), performance implications of a large grid, or format details of the output. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 sentence, very concise, but at the expense of critical parameter information. Efficient wording, but missing content reduces its usefulness.

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, no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% coverage make the description incomplete. It fails to explain how to invoke the tool correctly (parameters) and does not contextualize among sibling tilemap tools.

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 0%, requiring description to explain parameters. The description mentions none of the parameters (filename, layer, frame). The agent must infer their meaning from the tool name and schema types, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'tilemap', and specifies the output as a '2D grid of tile indices, plus tile size and count'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tilemap_layer or set_tiles, which modify the tilemap.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for reading, but does not mention prerequisites, such as the tilemap existing on the specified layer and filename, or when other read tools might be more appropriate.

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