verify_tileset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently describes the rendering behavior, the visual interpretation criteria (red 2x2 block = 64px, red/cyan coincidence = 32px), the output (preview PNG), and the return values (path, size, verdict). It also instructs to review the preview before registering, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence establishes the rendering and output, the second supplies the interpretation logic, and the third lists return values and the critical follow-up action. Every sentence provides necessary information with no waste.

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 explicitly enumerates the return values (preview path, tile size, alignment verdict) and explains the visual decision rule. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional documentation, though it does not cover edge cases like errors or file-not-found scenarios.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (filePath, scale, outDir). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to render an asset with overlaid grids and write a preview PNG for tile size verification. It distinguishes itself from siblings like render_tileset_atlas and validate_assets by specifying the RMXP 32px grid and detected content grid, making its unique verification function explicit.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'before registering' a tileset, and it explains how to interpret the results (e.g., 64px vs 32px). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is sufficient to place it among sibling tools.

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