create_tileset_identification_harness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It details the artifacts produced (source sheet, tile images, manifest.json contents, index.html), giving insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files in outDir, required permissions, or whether the tool is safe to re-run. It provides meaningful context but not full behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and the second enumerates the specific outputs. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, follows a logical structure, and contains no fluff or redundancy. It is information-dense but still readable.

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 tool has moderate complexity with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the complete artifact set, the input requirement (one tileset), and the recommended usage timing. While it does not mention return values or side effects, the provided context gives an agent enough to decide when to use and what to expect from the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds overall purpose but does not elaborate on the meaning or usage of 'scale' or 'outDir' beyond the schema defaults. It mentions manifest.json contents, which indirectly relates to tileset processing details, but not to the parameters themselves. 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Create a review bundle' and identifies the exact resource ('one tileset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like render_tileset_atlas or verify_tileset by focusing on the identification harness purpose. It clearly states the output types and the goal of separating engine facts from semantic claims.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before assigning map-design roles to an uncataloged tileset.' This clarifies when to invoke the tool, though it does not enumerate specific when-not-to-use conditions or alternate tools. The context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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