get_tilesets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' discloses output formatting details like 'empty slots omitted,' and describes the mode encoding (0 world / 1 area). It even notes which image sheet labels are used, giving a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output shape.

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 three tightly written sentences. The first defines the action and output, the second gives usage context, and the third offers a cheaper alternative and the read-only note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, how the data is structured, when to use it, what other tools depend on it, an alternative approach, and its safe, read-only nature. This fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further clarification.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning of the mode field (0 world / 1 area) and the sheet labels, which helps the agent interpret results. While no input parameters need explanation, the contextual output details enrich understanding beyond the empty 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 starts with 'List every tileset in the project' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, mode, image sheets). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_names by noting the alternative for a plain id→name list.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover valid tilesetId values' and lists dependent tools. It also provides an alternative: 'For a plain id→name list, list_names(type:"tilesets") is even cheaper.' This gives clear contextual guidance on choosing between similar operations.

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