get_map_tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (2D grid with rows top-to-bottom), layer behavior, and tile ID semantics, as well as a payload-related caveat. It doesn't address permission needs or invalid mapId behavior, but for a read operation this is strong coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, layer behavior, tile ID ranges, and usage tip. No redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers output structure, layer selection, tile meanings, and crop capability. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 67% and already describes layer and region. The description adds value by explaining the layer output behavior ('Returns one layer if layer is given, else all three') and the rationale for region cropping ('avoid large payloads'). It also clarifies tile ID ranges, which indirectly helps interpret layer/body data. mapId is self-explanatory.

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 an explicit action and target: 'Read a map's tile ids as a 2D grid'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like set_map_tiles and metadata tools like get_map or get_map_infos.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The note 'Use region to crop and avoid large payloads' is parameter usage advice, not tool selection guidance. Context implies it is for reading tile data, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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