get_tilemap

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the return is a 2D grid of tile indices plus tile size and count, but it says nothing about the layer/frame scoping behavior or error cases for a missing layer.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is well-sized, though it spends its payload on the return shape rather than the arguments the caller must supply.

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 read-only tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is adequate on the output side but thin on the input side: two required parameters (filename, layer) are unexplained and there is no output schema to fall back on. It leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%: filename and layer — both required — have no descriptions, and only frame ('Default: 1') is documented. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required inputs. An agent cannot tell what a valid 'layer' value is.

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 (read) and resource (tilemap), and even describes the shape of the result: a 2D grid of tile indices plus tile size and count. It is clearly a read operation, distinguishing it implicitly from write-oriented siblings like set_tile or fill_tilemap, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not state when an agent should call get_tilemap versus related tools (get_pixels, get_cel, list_slices) or what prerequisites apply. Usage is only implied by the word 'read'.

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