find_tile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses case-insensitivity, literal substring matching (with examples), the effect of searchDescriptions, coverage of Overworld vs custom sheets, and the 'read-only' nature. It even explains the meaning of the 'transparent' flag. All important behavioral traits are explicitly stated.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, matching semantics, workflow, searchDescriptions behavior, return fields, and coverage. It is front-loaded and well-paragraphed, though slightly dense. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 there is no output schema, the description impressively covers return fields (name, sheet, tile id, autotile kind, source, matchedIn, transparent, description/confidence/manual), the difference between built-in and custom catalog data, and the relationship to get_tile_catalog. No critical context is missing for a search tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the query is a literal substring (not synonym), that searchDescriptions only widens over custom sheets, and by clarifying that tilesetId comes from Tilesets.json/the map. This goes beyond merely restating parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Find tiles in a tileset by a case-insensitive SUBSTRING match on their catalog name.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tile_catalog (browsing) and describe_tile (describing a single tile) by emphasizing its role as a 'quick bridge from a name fragment to a paintable tile id.' The contrast with semantic search also clarifies its exact scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance and names an alternative: 'To browse the actual tile names first, use get_tile_catalog with a `sheet` filter, then search a fragment you see.' It also explains when searchDescriptions is useful (custom sheets vs built-in entries) and the limitation of literal substring matching. This gives an agent clear direction on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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