List JSON world map members

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these by specifying it reads and returns data. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing expandPatterns semantics, pattern matching, lack of deduplication, and output structure, providing useful behavioral context.

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 fairly long and dense, packing many details into one paragraph. While it is front-loaded with the main purpose, the length could be reduced by splitting into multiple sentences or bullet points. It is informative but not optimally 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 world maps with pattern-based members, the description covers key aspects: explicit members, coordinates, sizes, pinned revisions, custom properties, and expandPatterns behavior. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return values, so the description 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 coverage is 50% (worldPath has description, expandPatterns does not). The description compensates by explaining expandPatterns thoroughly: when true, it matches patterns with specific semantics, uses multipliers/offsets, and appends members without deduplication. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 reads a project-local JSON .world file and returns explicit map members with world coordinates, sizes, per-member existence, pinned revisions, and custom properties. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on listing world maps, not other Tiled resources.

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 explains the behavior when expandPatterns is passed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tiled_list_files or tiled_get_map_summary. Usage context is implied (reading world maps) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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