Read referenced tileset details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what the summary includes (sparse tile metadata, animation, collision shapes, Wang sets) and limitations (omission markers for oversized entries, collection Wang sets fail closed).

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 clearly structured with front-loaded purpose and layered details. Some sentences are dense and could be simplified, but the information is well-organized and relevant.

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, output schema exists), the description is quite complete. It covers return value content, edge cases (omission markers), and failure conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, and the description adds useful summary context.

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 only 20% (only mapPath described). The description adds meaning for the selectors (tilesetAssetId, embeddedIndex) by explaining their roles, but it does not provide additional semantics for limit or startTileId beyond their schema defaults and constraints.

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 a bounded semantic summary of one tileset referenced by a map. It distinguishes two selector methods (external TSJ by tilesetAssetId or embedded by embeddedIndex), which differentiates it from sibling tools like tiled_get_map_summary or tiled_list_tile_names.

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 explicitly notes that exactly one selector is required (tilesetAssetId or embeddedIndex) and mentions failure modes for embedded image-collection tilesets. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tiled_get_map_summary for broader map data.

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