Read a Tiled map summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: embedded inline tilesets are read-only and pinned by revision, infinite maps report infinite:true and chunked bounds, isometric maps are readable but read-only, staggered/hexagonal are rejected, and XML maps go through a fail-closed subset reader with editable:false. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 detailed but not excessively verbose. It covers essential aspects in a logical order: what is read, special cases for inline tilesets, infinite maps, isometric, staggered/hexagonal, and XML. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of map types (infinite, isometric, staggered, hexagonal, XML) and the availability of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers behaviors, constraints, and return markers. It addresses read-only aspects, revision pinning, and edge cases. No missing information for a read operation.

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?

With only one parameter (mapPath) and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the path constraints. The tool description does not add further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reads' and enumerates the exact resources and metadata it returns (dimensions, metadata, revision, layer tree, tileset identities). It explicitly distinguishes itself from editing tools by noting 'before editing' and handling of different map types (infinite, isometric, staggered, hexagonal, XML), making its purpose clear and distinct from siblings.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading a map summary before editing, implying it should be used when preparing to edit. It specifies when certain map types are readable or rejected (e.g., staggered/hexagonal rejected, XML returns editable:false). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context from siblings helps infer.

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