get_tile_flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the isolated-tile semantics (an important behavioral caveat), and the exact return shape. It does not mention error handling or invalid inputs, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output structure. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, read-only caveat with alternative, and return format. No filler.

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?

The description covers the purpose, relevant caveats, and return value. It explicitly notes the distinction from check_passability, which is essential given the sibling list. Minor omissions like invalid IDs or default flag values do not significantly hinder understanding, especially with the output shape stated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a little semantic context ('tile id' and 'tileset id') but does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb ('Decode'), identifies the resource ('a tileset's flag word for a single tile id'), and details the output (passability directions, star bit, ladder/bush/counter/damage-floor flags, terrain tag). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like describe_tile or check_passability.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('read-only inspection of data/Tilesets.json flags[]') and when not to use: 'a real cell's passability layers its stacked tiles — use check_passability for that.' This gives direct alternative guidance and exclusions.

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