Render selected tiles

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 context about labeling, no sorting, no pagination, revision-pinning, and fail-closed for missing IDs. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences are efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, but the third sentence adds minor detail that could be integrated. Slightly dense, but overall good use of space.

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 output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description covers the main behavior, input constraints, and edge cases. It lacks details on performance or prerequisites, but is complete for a focused rendering tool.

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 57%. The description adds some context for localIds (explicit bounded, input-ordered, missing IDs fail closed) but does not explain other parameters like scale, columns, mapPath, tilesetAssetId, or revisions beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('renders') and resource ('explicit bounded selection of local tile IDs from one referenced external tileset'). It distinguishes from siblings like tiled_render_tileset_sheet and tiled_find_tiles by emphasizing explicit ID selection and lack of sorting/pagination.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: for rendering selected tiles by local IDs from a single tileset. Implicitly excludes other use cases (e.g., sorting, pagination) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Context signals with many sibling tools provide implicit guidance.

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