Check tile layer connectivity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: 'endpoints on blocked cells fail closed', 'flip bits never affect matching', and outlines the return values (passable/blocked counts, connected components with representative cells, and connectivity between two points). This provides useful additional insight for the agent.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core function and then details modes and return values. It is concise with no redundant sentences. However, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of concepts for even faster parsing.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description provides a comprehensive behavioral overview including return values and edge cases (e.g., blocked cells). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return types fully. Minor gaps exist for mapPath and layerId, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.

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 20% (low). The description partially compensates by explaining the 'passable' parameter's two modes and the role of 'from'/'to' for connectivity queries. However, it does not describe the 'mapPath' or 'layerId' parameters beyond what the schema provides, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 performs bounded four-way connectivity analysis over a finite tile layer, with explicit passability modes (empty-cells vs listed-tiles). It also lists what it returns (counts, components, connectivity) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tiled_get_region or tiled_find_tiles through its specific focus on connectivity.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on comparison with other tools for pathfinding or region analysis. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description, but not directly addressed.

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