Analyze tile usage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that hidden layers and tile objects are included, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions; behavioral traits align with read-only operation.

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 sentences, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value: one lists the computed summaries, the other notes inclusion of hidden layers and tile objects. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior for a read-only analysis tool. However, it could briefly mention that results are bounded (e.g., top tile limit) to clarify scope.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter details, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters (topTileLimit, expectedDependencyRevisions). The agent must rely on schema alone, 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 tool returns bounded whole-map tile frequency, layer density, transform, used-tileset, and unused-local-ID summaries, using a specific verb (returns) and resource (tile usage summaries). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tiled_get_map_summary and tiled_find_tiles by focusing on usage analytics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tiled_get_map_summary or tiled_find_tiles. The description does not provide context hints or exclude scenarios, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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